Top

DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT?
m
CLOSED
STACKS
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE
BOOK
Not to be taken Irom the Library
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
MAY 1 1996
"^ * SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 1223 03476 4150
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013
http://archive.org/details/1minutes1988sanf
MS"
»2
hlu SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS DEPT
MAR 4 1988
SAN FRANQlt»cO
^Uftt If. I IHwnov
MINUTES
JANUARY 5, 1988
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
Presldtnt
J. EDWARO FLEISHELL
Vic«Pr«$ldtnt
OR. Z.L GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
OON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California y<n^B
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
January 5, 1988
CALENDAR
SECTION
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
A.
B.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
c.
D.
E.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Resolution Awarding the Lease
for Insurance/Business Service
Center
Authorization to Accept Bids
for the Foreign Currency
Boarding Area 'E' Newsstand
Operating Permit
Award of Contract No. 1767:
Purchasing Contract Proposal
No. 783 - Computerized Identi-
fication Card System
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
88-0001
PAGE
88-0002
3-4
88-0003
4
88-0004
5
88-0005
5-6
Revised Five-Year Capital
Projects Plan
88-0006
Bid Call : Contract No. 2024
Carpet Replacement - Bldg. 8,
1000, 676 and Other Airport
Offices
88-0007
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Award of Contract No. 1724:
Runway 19L Blast Protection
88-0008
6-7
8. Approval of Budget for Contract
Year 1988/89 for O'Brien-
Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc.,
Scheduling Consultant for the
South Terminal Complex Recon-
struction Program 88-0009
9. Authorization of Contractural
Agreement between Airport and
the American Carousel Museum 88-0010
10. Type II Modification: Contract
No. 1564R - Rehabilitation
Drainage Pump Station No. 1 88-0011
11. Close Out Professional Services
Contract with Esherick, Homsey,
Dodge and Davis, Architect for
Boarding Area 'B' - South
Terminal 88-0012
12. Travel/Training Request for
Airport Representatives 88-0013
CORRESPONDENCE:
I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO
CLOSED SESSION:
Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
January 5, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present: Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
Absent: Z. L. Goosby
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 1987 were adopted by
order of the Commission President.
No. 87-0001
D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
1 . Resolution Awarding the Lease for Insurance/Business Service Center
88-0002 Resolution awarding Insurance/Business
Service Center lease to Tele-Trip
Company, Inc.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that one bid was received. A
second bidder has submitted a letter of protest. According to staff,
this bidder arrived late to the bid opening and had no bond.
Minutes, January 5. 1988. Page 3
Commissioner Stephens asked if this was the bidder who could not get
a certified check.
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business & Finance, responded
that this prospective bidder did claim that he was unable to get a
certified check. She said that when she spoke to him he claimed he
had no business dealings in California and that banks in this state
do not issue certified checks readily. She told the Commission that
she pointed out to him that the winning bidder had submitted a
certified check from his home state of Nebraska. She also told him
that there were four other forms of security he could have used. Ms.
Gittens also said that he was late and, in fact, did not have a bid.
His partner, who supposedly had the other bid materials, was late for
the bid opening. She felt his request had no merit and the lease
should be awarded.
Commissioner Stephens asked Ms. Gittens if the lease should be
awarded in light of the amount the second bidder was offering.
Ms. Gittens responded that that remained to be seen; staff never saw
his bid documents.
Commissioner Flei shell asked if there were any legal problems.
Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded none at all.
Authorization to Accept Bids for the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease
No. 88-0003 Resolution approving lease specifica-
tions and authorizing Director to
accept bids for the Foreign Currency
Exchange Lease.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that there would be two locations, one
on the upper level and one on the lower level of the International
Terminal. He said that there is a proviso for mobile carts in order
to meet unusual or unique circumstances. He told the Commission that
values have been changed, as the bid package indicates, in response
to comments by prospective bidders to our bid proposals. He
recommended authorizing the bid.
Commissioner Fleishell commented that it might be helpful to place a
sign in the customs area by baggage claim Informing passengers that
their currency can be changed just outside of customs. He said that
in other countries, currency exchange operations are located In the
customs area.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the foreign currency exchange
operation could be located Inside customs.
Mr. Turpen responded that this came up several years ago but customs
would not allow it. He said that staff had a difficult time just
getting a representative from Smarte Carte inside customs to change
money for carts. He said that Customs has been very unresponsive to
those types of requests.
Commissioner Fleishell said he did not want to go through that
again. He suggested that the best place to install the sign would be
next to the arrivals board located at the carousels.
Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 4
Boarding Area 'E' Newsstand Operating Permit
No. 88-0004 Award of a month-to-month permit to
A. B.C. Cigar to operate the newsstand
at Boarding Area ' E' .
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Airport has been involved in
a protracted effort to secure a concessionaire for Boarding Area 'E'.
It has been bid a couple of times and one successful bidder, Duty
Free Shoppers, has been received. Because of the investigation being
conducted on Duty Free's downtown activities, staff has been unable
to secure the requisite approvals from the Board of Supervisors to
move ahead. He said that this concession was expected to be in place
at least six months ago. During that time both Aeroplex and Elson's
have approached staff; one said that he could not continue, the other
indicated that he would require a substantial rent concession from
the Airport in order to continue. Staff has indicated to both that
they are free to terminate their operations. He explained that in
this interim period it is important to continue service to this area.
Mr. Turpen said that this agreement is a 30-day permit to run the
operation at 20 percent of gross revenues until such time as staff
can conclude Duty Free's concession.
Commission Stephens asked if A. B.C. wants a long term contract.
Ms. Gittens responded that A. B.C. came in third on the Boarding Area
'E' concession bid so she assumed they would be interested in a
long-term relationship.
Mr. Turpen said that if staff cannot consumate this deal with Duty
Free, we would be obligated to re-bid the lease. He felt that at
some point the questions with regard to Duty Free would be resolved
and hoped that would happen within the next few weeks.
Commissioner Stephens asked if A. B.C. is a local /minority company.
Mr. Turpen responded that they are a local company and owned by
women. He explained that A. B.C. will not be paying the $100,000-a-
month minimum guarantee that Duty Free would be paying.
Ms. Gittens added that in addition to the main store at the mouth of
Boarding Area 'E', there is to be another store on the other side of
Boarding Area 'E', one out on Boarding Area 'F' by United, and, the
new space, all of which will be vacant. Boarding Area 'E' is the
most critical location as it is about 70 percent of the. space.
Commissioner Flei shell asked if a provision has been made to ensure
that the departing concessionaire leaves all of the necessary
fixtures in place.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that that Is a condition of their permit and
has been verified by the Property Management staff. The only fixture
they are taking is the cash register.
4. Award of Contract No. 1767:
Purchasing Contract Proposal No. 783
Computerized Identification Card System
No. 88-0005
Mr. Turpen said that this is another step towards enhancing the
Minutes, January 5, 1988. Page 5
Airport's security system. If not the first, it is one of the first
in the United States and will be a forthcoming requirement of the
FAA. He said it is an excellent step for the Airport.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what areas will be secured and how
wi 1 1 they be secured.
Mr. Turpen responded that this system will control access through
existing access points. It doesn't go beyond those areas to which
access is currently prohibited or the perimeter which is the air
operations area. He said that that secured perimeter exists today.
This will enhance our abilities to control access through specified
points on the Airport where employees have to go to get from the
non-secured to the secured side. This is designed to do that as well
as give the Airport accurate information as to who should be where on
the Airport. It also gives the Airport the capability to immediately
terminate anyone's access privileges without securing their I.D.
card. This is a computer-based system designed to centralize
information and control access through a legitimate access point. It
is the first phase in what is contemplated as a multi-phase system.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would like to understand what the
phases are and what the Airport is moving towards.
Mr. Turpen responded that this is a complete project, however, in
view of recent Federal requirements, there will be several other
projects which will have to be installed. This system will cause
everyone at the Airport to use the same I.D. card as opposed to the
several I.D. cards that are currently used.
5. Revised Five-Year Capital Projects Plan
No. 88-0006 Resolution approving the Airport's
revised-Five Year Capital Projects
Plan.
Mr. Turpen said that this is required to go before the airlines for
review and Mr. Yuen indicates that they offered no objections. He
explained that this simply outlines the Airport's anticipated plans
for the next five years. All of these projects will come before the
Commission for a vote.
Bid Call: Contract No. 2024
Carpet Replacement - Bldg. 8. 1000. 676 and Other Airport Offices
No. 88-0007 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 2024 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bid when ready.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
7. Award of Contract No. 1724 :
Runway 19L Blast Protection
Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 6
No. 88-0008 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1724
to O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the amount
of $304,020.00.
Approval of Budget for Contract Year 1988/89 for 0' Brien-Krei tzberg &
Associates, Inc., Scheduling and Resources Consultant for the South
Terminal Complex Reconstruction Program
No. 88-0009 The contract between consultant and
City requires a new budget for each
12-month period. In anticipation of
the reduced workload, the proposed
budget represents a 62% decrease from
the current budget.
Authorization of Contractual Agreement between Airport and the
American Carousel Museum
No. 88-0010 Contract for $10,000 with the American
Carousel Museum for the purpose of
providing objects for the 1988 Holiday
Exhibition in the North Terminal
Connector Gallery.
10. Type II Modification: Contract No. 1564R
Rehabilitate Drainage Pump Station No. 1
No. 88-0011 Contract modification of $27,000 to
provide for repairing of pumps in
Industrial Waste Pump Station.
1 1 . Close Out Professional Services Contract With Esherick, Homsey, Dodge
and Davis, Architect for Boarding Area 'B', South Terminal
No. 88-0012 Resolution accepting work as
completed, setting final contract
price at $1,255,144.79 (amount
awarded: $1,276,800.00), and closing
out contract. Neither consultant nor
City plans to claim against the other.
12. Travel/Training Request for Airport Representatives
No. 88-0013
* * *
G. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
* * *
Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 7
I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM.
in Caramatti
'Commission Secretary
Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 8
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS DEP T .
MAR 4 1988
SAN FRANClouO
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 1988
SPECIAL MEETING
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EOWARO FLEISHELL
Vice-President
OR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEfM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
January 22, 1988
Special Meeting
CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION
SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE
A.
CALL TO ORDER:
B.
ROLL CALL
C.
ANNOUNCEMENT B
D.
ITEMS INITIATE
E.
POLICY:
1. Proposed Airport Noise
Regulation 88-0016
PUBLIC HEARING:
Proposed Fiscal Year 1987-88
Airport Budget 3
CORRESPONDENCE: 3
CLOSED SESSION: 2
ADJOURNMENT: 3
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
January 22, 1988
Special Meeting
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
10:00 A.M. in Room 2C, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti ,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0014 regarding the settlement of
ltiigation with Autoscan Systems,
Inc.; and, 88-0015, modification no. 1
to agreement with the law firm of
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus Vlahos and
Rudy to increase the total compensa-
tion payable by $100,000 at the closed
session of January 5, 1988.
H. CLOSED SESSION:
The meeting was recessed at 10:03 AM to go into closed session and
reconvened at 10:15 AM.
D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners
Minutes, January 22, 1988, Page 2
E. POLICY:
Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted. Attached is a court reporters
transcript of thi s item.
1 . Proposed Airport Noise Abatement Regulation
No. 88-0016
F. PUBLIC HEARING:
The public hearing on the budget was opened at 10:45 AM and closed at
10:46 AM, there being no comments from the public.
2. Proposed Fiscal Year 1988/89 Airports Commission Budget
G. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission,
I. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 10:46 AM.
tbUMuJu
?an Caramatti
amission Secretary
Minutes, January 22, 1988, Page 3
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ART AGNOS , MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOISE ABATEMENT REGULATION
Friday, January 22, 1988
SAN FRANCISCO CITY BALL, ROOM 2-C
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
UliLlu w - lL
Reported by CBARLOTTE CERVANTEZ, Notary Public
Alameda County, State of California
C.S.R. License No. 4486
Bay area Court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222 41 Sutter Suite 1222
Hayward, Ca. 94541 (415)481-8009 San Francisco. Ca. 94104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SAN_FEANCI£CQ_INTERfiATIQNAL_AIEPQET_£QMMIS£IQNERS
HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President
HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Commissioner
BONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEISBELL, Commissioner
BONORABLE ATHENA TSOOGARAKIS, Commissioner
HONORABLE DON RICHARDS STEPHENS, Commissioner
LOUIS A. TORPEN, Director of Airports
DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel
STEVEN ROSENTHAL, Airport Outside Counsel
JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary
AUDIENCE_S_PEAKER£
Christine Bishol
David Carbone
Roger Chinn
Vance Fort
Mary Griffin
Shelley Kessler
Jerry Nelson
Delores Buajardo
Herbert Rosenthal
Du a ne S pe nee
PAGE
3
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
16
18
oOo
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hay ward. Ca. 94541
Bay area Court reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutler. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
1 EEQCEEDlfiSS
2
MR. BERNSTEIN: All right, Miss Caramatti, have you
4 read the resolution?
5 MS. CARAMATTI: No I have not.
6 Proposed Airport Noise Abatement Regulation.
7 MR. TDRPEN: Ladies and gentlemen, may we have your
8 attention, please. The Airports Commission is now considering
9 its proposed Airport Noise Regulation. I ask the Commission
10 secretary to recognize anyone who might like to address the
11 Commission at this time.
12 MS. TSO0GARAKIS: We have the list.
13 MR. TDRPEN: Commissioner Bernstein, do you have the
14 list?
15 MS. CARAMATTI: Yes, we do.
16 MR. TDRPEN: Do you have the names?
17 MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, I do.
18 There are quite a few speakers, and in the interest
19 of time, would you please limit it to about three minutes.
First speaker, Miss Christine Bishol of Terrace
Drive, San Francisco, representing the Airport Noise Committee.
CfiEISlIHE-BISflQL
MS. BISBOL: Good morning to the distinguished
members of this Commission. My name is Christine Bishol, and
I'm a member of the Airport Noise Committee. I am honored to be
Bay area court Reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward.Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. C» 94104
the appointee of Supervisor Jim Gonzalez, who has requested that
I come here this morning to speak on his behalf and on the
behalf of the entire committee.
I understand that you are considering today new
regulation which would phase out by 1999 certain types of
aircraft which would be allowed to land in San Francisco
International Airport.
Supervisor Gonzalez and I and the entire committee
strongly support this significant and necessary first step. We
are all concerned and active members of this San Francisco
community. We fully realize the importance of maintaining a
strongly competitive and thriving business community. We must
work to encourage businesses to base themselves in our city.
I believe that this does contribute to a higher
standard of living for all people in this city. I believe that
this strong business community assists San Francisco in
maintaining its status as one of the world's greatest places to
live. I also believe that we roust also continue to encourage a
reasonable amount of tourism.
All of this requires that we maintain a competitive
and thriving and efficient international airport. However, as
representatives of the people of San Francisco's best interest,
we must also seriously consider the quality of life which we
should expect for ourselves and for everyone who lives in and
around our city.
We must listen to the voices of the many people of
Bay area Court Reporters
20993 Foothill. Suite 222
Hayward.Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
the many neighborhoods who have been working with us and
reporting to us that the noise is getting worse, that they can
count five to seven planes in a row taking off from
San Francisco International Airport at the hour of 7:00 a.m.
Why is it that these people are aware of these
aircraft when they live so very far away from the takeoff and
landing runways? Our committee is working to answer these
questions for ourselves and for those we represent. We are
searching for ways to solve this airport noise problem and at
the same time encourage our city to continue to be competitive
in a world market. We see the passing of this regulation as an
excellent first step.
Yes, we do need to have a busy international
airport. However, we do need to pursue new means to attaining
this goal without ruining the integrity of this city, which has
been surviving quite well for a much longer period of time.
The larger airlines are obviously not going to like
it if you regulate the types of aircrafts that are going to land
at your airport. They're going to do everything they can to
stop these regulation from occuring. This is completely
understandable, as this type of regulation can cost the airlines
a lot of money.
However, in the long run, we hope that these
airlines will understand that if they promote the production of
quieter aircraft within their company, they will get our market
for long-term profit. This could be a very difficult change for
Bay area court Reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward.Ca. 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
the airlines to accept. However, if this Commission has heard
the voices of the people of this city, the airlines will have no
choice but to change, for the betterment of all.
Supervisor Gonzalez and I, along with the entire
airport noise committee and those we represent, would like to
thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Knowing the integrity of the distinguished members of this
Commission, we feel confident that you will support this
regulation as an excellent first step.
Thank you.
MR. TORPEN: Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
Mr. David Carbone, the City of South San Francisco.
D&XID_C.££BQflE
MR. CARBONE: Good morning, Commissioners, my name
is David Carbone, City of South San Francisco. We have some
comments, as also some other communities have, and we'd like to
voice ours, again, our support for the regulation and give you
our comments.
Among the concerns, though, that we have is that the
revisions have relaxed some of the time frames, some of the key
elements of the regulation, that we feel are not what we were
expecting through the draft of November; and also it would
hamper some of the noise regulation work that's been done by
the Airport Community Round Table and some communities who have
Bay area court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward, Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco, Ca 94104
been working within the airport for a long, long time.
Specifically those sections that I'm referring to
are the time tables regarding the percentage of Stage 3
operations and the limitations on nighttime Stage 2 operations
and also the maximum nighttime noise levels.
We do commend the Commission on the comprehensive
regulation, and we certainly support your efforts in dealing
with that situation at the airport. Those of all of San Mateo
County are appreciative of that. However, we are concerned that
by limiting some of these — or extending some of these time
frames, that the desired effect of your regulation will not be
what you expect, and it certainly won't be what we're expecting.
We'd like to see you take another look at some of
those time frames and hopefully not push them back far enough
where they will defeat their intended purpose.
Thank you.
MR. TDRPEN: Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Roger Chinn, Foster City, represeting the
Round Table.
PQgER, CBIUS
MR. CBINN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
my name is Roger Chinn, I'm Chairman of the Round Table of
San Mateo County and of the airport. I'd like to just briefly
indicate my views, and only my views, of the revisions to the
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward. Ca. 94541
Bay area court reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter, Suite 1222
San Francisco, Ca 94104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
noise regulation.
The January llth and 21st changes have not been
reviewed by the Round Table. I have had an opportunity to
review them along with our consultant. I am willing to advise
the Round Table that we should recommend and adopt — ask you to
adopt the changes as well as the the entire regulation, as
changed, I should say.
Mr. Turpen has briefly told me of the changes of
the 21st, the changes that were written up yesterday. I frankly
have not read them through and deciphered what they indicate,
but it appears to be changes that can be iroplementable , with the
help of the communities in the peninsula.
I would like to also indicate to you that a number
of constituents have contacted me, not only in the peninsula but
in your community of San Francisco, indicating their concerns
over the noise regulation as changed. I do feel, though, as I
indicated, that the changes are good, that they can be
impleraentable , if we can have some time to review them and also
monitor them and also come back with some recommendations in the
coming months.
Supervisor Gonzalez has and I have talked about
these regulation and the changes that are being proposed, and I
think we both agree that these changes can be good for all our
communities if we have the opportunity of reviewing them.
We have also contacted Mayor Agnos , and I have
copies of that letter to you, indicating our support of the
Bay area Court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward.Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
S»n Francisco, Ca 94104
Commission's review of the regulation; but again, I want to
emphasize that we should go forward positively and have an
opportunity of looking over these regulation and how they will
4 affect the communities in the future.
Thank you.
6 MR. TORPEN: Thank you, Roger.
7 MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
8 Mr. Vance Fort of Los Angeles from Flying Tigers.
9
10 V.ANC_E_FQRT
11 MR. FORT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
12 Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. We appreciate and
13 recognize the great deal of work done by the Commission in
14 preparing itself for this room.
15 There have been a number of important changes made
16 since we were here last month, in the meeting at that time, from
17 previous sessions. We appreciate that work. But also we remain
18 concerned. It's clear that notwithstanding the fact that we
19 have one of the most noise efficient fleets, we would be
20 adversely affected by this rule. To what extent, it's not
21 clear; but certainly it's altogether conceivable that we'll have
to take some pay load penalty in order to comply with the rules,
especially in the coming years.
Equally important is our concern about the
proliferation of these kinds of rules on a national and also on
a local level. Obviously issues not directly of concern to you,
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward. Ca. 94541
Bay area Court Reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
10
1 but as we attempt to operate a national system, indeed an
2 international system, we are concerned that we are going to one
3 day wake up and find ourselves unable to get from point A to
4 point B, because of a number of rules that in and of themselves
5 make a lot of sense but when taken together actually adversely
6 impact the ability to operate in a very fundamental way.
7 The Airport Association earlier this month asked the
8 Commission to consider deferring final consideration of this
9 rule, we would like to reiterate that request. We think it's
10 very serious, we know that you do, and we think we could all
11 benefit from more consideration of it.
12 I'd just like to say, in closing, that I've also
13 been asked on behalf of the senior management of
14 Northwest Airlines in Minneapolis to reiterate its concerns
15 expressed here last month. They say that those concerns are no
16 less today, in light of the Commission's work with respect to
17 this issue, than they were last month.
18 MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vance.
19 Mary Griffin with the San Mateo Board of
20 Supervisors.
21
M_A.EJf_SBIEEIfi
MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Chairman Burnstein. I'm
here today to speak to you to urge that you not do anything that
will have local control preempted from some of these noise
regulations. That is my main concern.
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hay ward, Ca 94541
Bay area Court reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
11
I hear the airlines speaking to not being hampered
by local regulation, and yet at the same time I have worked very
closely with your Airports Director in the almost 12 years that
I've been in elected office, and I know that we have had a lot
of community input.
I happen to represent the district in
San Mateo County that really is most impacted by the airport and
airport noise. I live in the district and represent the
district that really is the boundary of the airport. I
recognize as a Board of Supervisor member the importance of the
airport to our economy and to our well-being, but I also have
many, many constituent calls about airport noise.
We have moved ahead and moved forward in our
cooperative approaches to this and I, for one, feel that for us
to delay noise regulations, local noise regulations, until we
are preempted by the federal government, would be a grievous
error for our constituency.
I haven't had a chance yet to review the changes
that have been made since our Airport Found Table met, but I do
ask that you not — not — delay this forever so that the
federal government will step in and say the local citizens no
longer have any rights. That's my biggest concern.
Thank you.
MR. TDRPEN: Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
Shelley Kessler of the Airport Labor Coalition,
Bay area Court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward, Ca. 94541
(415)481 8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
12
San Mateo Labor Council.
£EELLEY_KE££L.E£
MS. KESSLEF : Good morning, I'm back again to
represent those unions who represent the large organized work
force out at the airport. We have been enemies with Mr. Turpen
and have spoken with different Commission members about the
noise abatement regulation to get as much clarification and
understanding of the situation as possible.
We definitely appreciate the hard work that's been
done to deal with both the concerns of the community in and
around the airport, to mitigate the noise problem, and also for
the air carriers to deal with their concerns about being able to
have use of the airport.
However, the only part of the equasion that's not in
the noise regulation is that which affects labor. Our unions
have expressed concern, because in all of the language that's
there, there's not clear or predictable language that affects
the impact upon us. Due to that lack of specific language, we
really want to take a position of nonsupport on this noise
regulation, because we do not know what the actual impact is
going to be .
We are concerned about the present and future work
force at that location. Our members live in and around the
airport, as well as work there; that's why it's very tough. I'm
sure that you've received a letter that puts out our position
Bay area court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward, Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter, Suite 1222
San Francisco, Ca 94104
13
fairly clearly, that we are caught in a bind in one sense, now;
because we understand and appreciated and would like to have
good noise abatement put in place, but we also want to protect
the jobs of our people.
So I thank you all for giving the opportunity; I
wish we would have had more time to review this and talk about
the impact of these regulation; and hopefully it we can have
some opportunity in the future, to maybe put an amendment in or
something that deals with job security, we'd like that
opportunity to do so.
Thank you.
MR. TORPEN: Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
Jerry Nelson, Local 1781, representing Ground
Service Employees.
IEB£X_fl£L£QE
MR. NELSON: Good morning, Commissioner Bernstein,
fellow Commissioners. My name is Jerry Nelson, I'm President of
Local 1781, representing the Ground Service Employees of the
major carriers at San Francisco International.
I would like to express only one concern here this
morning. I know your time is short and there are many issues to
be dealt with here. Discretionary authority is what concerns roe
with the regulation as presented to you here this morning; that
discretionary authority is put in the hands of a Director of
20993 Foothill. Suite 222
Hayward.Ca 94541
Bay area Court Reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
Airports .
You can begin with page 6 of the amended proposed
regulation, and again it references "Director of Airports
shall," "Director of Airports may," "at the request of," "shall
be heard by the Commission or an official designee" — obviously
the official designee of the Airport Commission is going to be
the Airports Director.
Throughout, beginning with the variances on page 6,
going through to exemptions for maintenance operations, "upon
written application, the Director of Airports may grant..."
If you look upon this document as a sterile and
sanitized document, that will live in perpetuity eventually —
MR. GOOSBY: Only the Bible is that pure.
MR. NELSON: I was referencing the attorney that's
on the Board. They like to use those kinds of words.
If it lives forever, what we're faced with is a
situation where the interpretation of and the study of this
document in the future may have a different connotation than it
presently does today.
We feel within our local union that the language
needs to be tightened up, that some further direction needs to
be given. Yes, we're talking about noise abatement here, we're
talking about motherhood and apple pie.
Nobody is against fighting the problems of noise.
Everybody, including the workers who walk around with earplugs
and earmuffs eight hours a day, don't like the noise.
Bay area Court Reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward, Ca 94541
(4151481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
15
They recognize the technology doesn't exist yet,
that we're on the threshold of finding that technology, but we
are also looking at 8000 maintenance jobs at the San Francisco
International Airport that could be impacted — Flying Tiger,
Northwest, United Airlines. Major concerns of the workers.
I'm here this morning to express that concern and
the concern about discretionary authority, that hopefully this
Commission will take a look at and address it.
Thank you very much for your time.
MR. TOFPEN: Thank you very much.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson.
Miss Deloris Huajardo. Is that the way you
pronounce it?
MR. TORPEN: Deloris Buajardo?
MR. BERNSTEIN: Buajardo?
You are a resident of San Mateo County.
DELQ£ES_flO_&2&£DQ
MS. BUAJARDO: Right, I'm a resident of Burlingame,
and I thank you for this opportunity to speak.
We appreciate this important move that you are
taking to adopt regulations, and we highly commend you for this
step. We think it's very important, but the regulations that
have finally come down have not been able to be reviewed by the
community with input from the community; and as you've heard
from our representatives, they have not had time to review the
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward.Ca. 94541
Bay area Court Reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
16
final draft adequately.
So we would ask that you postpone adoption of the
regulation until after the Round Table meets on February
the 3rd, when there's been time for careful consideration by the
county. I would like to submit to you a comparative draft that
we did.
There's a comparison of the original draft, then
what was proposed to the Found Table, and then the final draft.
I'll submit that for your review.
Thank you very much.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Herbert Rosenthal, Washington, D.C. with D.B.L.
Airways .
fiEEBEET_EQS.EflTH.A_Ii
MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. President, members of the
Commission, I'm Herbert Rosenthal, I'm here today representing
D.B.L. Airways.
We operate one round trip per day into San Francisco
Airport about five days a week. We recognize that balancing the
competing demands of airport neighbors and airport users is a
very difficult job, and we recognize that you Commissioners and
the Airports Director and his staff are under enormous pressure.
It's a difficult task.
While we are not wholly pleased with this, the
rules, we are not wholly displeased. It looks to us as if we
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hay ward. Ca. 94541
Bay area Court reporters
(415)481 8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
17
will be able to obtain a variance from Section 4-B so that we
can continue to work with the Airports Commission and the
director and work with the vendors in the industry who are in
the developmental stages of reengining our new hush kits for the
727 100's and 72/ 200's which will be the backbone of our fleet
into the 1990 's.
We feel confident that there will be Stage 3 727's
sometime in the '90's; we don't know when, but we'll be working
with those vendors; and to the extent that these aircraft become
available, we will use our best efforts to put them into our
fleet and route them through San Francisco.
We expect that we would have no difficulty in
entering into a preferential runway agreement with the Airports
Director and living up to it. We feel that on a small operator,
that requirement in the variance procedure is reasonable and we
anticipate no difficulty in fulfilling it.
Thank you for the opportunity to let us participate
in this. We know its a difficult task, and we wish you good
luck in dealing with it.
Thank you.
MR. TORPEN: Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Berbert.
MR. GOOSBY: Appreciate that.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Duane Spence, representing the
Citizens of San Mateo as a citizen.
Bay area Court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hay ward, Ca 94541
(415)481 8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
18
MR. SPENCE: Good rooming ladies and gentlemen, I
apologize for taking up your time this rooming. I hadn't
planned to be here, but I had so many phone calls from my fellow
constituents in the San Mateo County that I was forced here, to
explain to you how bitterly disappointed we are with the draft
regulation as it stands now and our feeling that —
We feel you could have saved Mr. Turpen a lot of
trouble by asking him at the outset to have the airlines draft a
regulation, so you could adopt what they want.
Now there have been a litany of changes thrown at us
in these regulations. We feel that our elected representatives
have had no chance to review them. I think you're sympathetic
to the fact that to be fair they must be able to review them and
consider anything they want to do as far as affecting changes.
The best forum for that is the Community Round Table, and, so,
we ask that you defer your adoption of these regulations until
our Round Table has had a chance to meet and we have a chance to
confront our elected representatives at that meeting.
Let roe remind you that the Airport Community
Round Table was started about eight years ago and is in about
it's 70th meeting. Of those 70 meetings the elected
representatives of each city which is a member have been
present; San Francisco has chosen not to have an elected
representative there more than a half dozen tiroes. We're very
disappointed in that.
Bay area court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hay ward, Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco, Ca 94104
19
You've had an airport regulation for approximately
four years, and in that time over a million operations have
occurred at the airport; a major noise problem exists there, and
yet not one noise violation has been issued as a result of those
regulations .
We feel you have a chance here to start a very
effective noise regulation. Based upon your November draft
proposal, we had some modest changes that we wanted to see
tightened up. Rather than tightening up on each of those
points, they have either been held constant or have been
diluted, so that now we feel that we're not getting very much at
all in terms of affecting real changes in the noise operation at
the airport.
Again I would ask you, do not adopt your regulations
today; let us have a chance to meet as an organized body. And I
would urge that you have an elected representative, which is
your right and proper position, at the very next Round Table
meeting .
Thank you.
MR. TORPEN: Thank you.
MR. BERNSTEIN: That ends the speakers.
MR. TORPEN: Mr. President, the Airports Commission
and its staff have spent a considerable amount of time
delevoping a noise regulation — which, candidly, is at the
forefront of noise regulation in the United States — which
specifies requirements in terms of fleet mix and use of quieter
Bay area Court Reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward. Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
20
aircraft. It has been exhaustively coordinated to the best of
our ability and as much as is humanly possible.
I believe it is now time to move forward, and I
would recommend this regulation to you for your consideration
this morning.
MS. TSODGARAKIS: Move.
MR. GOOSBY: Second.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Are there any new comments from
the —
MR. GOOSBY: Well, I just wanted to assure the
community, both the users and the residents of the airport area,
and the users of the airport, that as we look at the amendments
and the language in the ordinance honoring the regulation, the
language that allows the, as one speaker mentioned,
discretionary authority, really builds in flexibility that we
feel more comfortable with; because nobody knows for sure how
they can put 15 pages of any kind of regulation together that's
going to satisfy everybody, and if it has satisfied everybody,
you just about haven't said anything.
The fact that we are getting criticism now from both
sides kind of tells roe we are approaching somewhere near the
right balance. So there's nobody who will be happy with this.
But I think that the language there allows this
approval, the approval of the Director for varianaces, for
temporary exemptions; so that we're not really going to hamper
the economy in any serious way, of the area.
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward.Ca. 94541
Bay area Court reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
Sen Francisco. C« 94104
21
I think the concerns of the neighboring community
are important, that we keep in mind, to see what impact this
will have.
This ordinance is not in concrete; it can be
appended, as any ordinance or any regulation can be. After
we've seen it in operation for a year or two. And I especially
remind the Round Table that they, as they look at these
suggested amendments by them as well as by the industry, can be
brought to the Director and to the Commission in subsequent
months and year or two or three, and signed up — after we've
seen how it works, what changes we should make.
So you should accept it with that in mind, with the
Commission having that in mind. That should make you, I think,
feel a little better about the approval of this, all of this, if
it's approved today.
The other thing of this, there's always the appeal
of the Director to the Commission on any ruling of the Director.
You can appeal to the five members of the Commission, who would
be sensitive to the various areas of our constituency.
So with that, I hope that it would allay a lot of
fears. The impact on the working force I think is often
forgotten, but I want to assure them that the Commission is on
top of your concern and will not forget that concern. We'll
keep it in foremost. That's all I have.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
I received a letter from Mr. James Murphy,
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward.Ca. 94541
Bay area court reporters
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
22
Vice-President of the Air Transport Association of America.
Would you please make that a part of the record.
MS. CARAMATTI : Yes.
MR. FLEISBELL: Can I just make one comment, if I
may. It's important that everyone know that despite the one
person's comment that this is a perpetual document, it isn't.
This can be amended next week. And inevitably when a
legislation or a rule goes out, too often there needs to be some
fine tunings.
I for one will not ever look for anything to put a
large segment of people out of work. And I don't think this
would do it. We're torn between the F.A.A. on the one side, who
says we are going beyond their authority, and on the other side
some people saying we're not being strong enough.
So, as Mr. Goosby says, we're getting to something
that seems fair to everyone.
Call the question.
Commissioner Bernstein?
Yes.
Commission Fleishell.
Yes.
Commission Goosby?
MR. GOOSBY: Yes.
MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis?
MS. TSOOGARAKIS: Yes.
MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Stephens?
MR. BERNSTEIN
MS. CARAMATTI
MR. BERNSTEIN
MS. CARAMATTI
MR. FLEISBELL
MS. CARAMATTI
Bay area Court reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward, Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
23
MR. STEPHENS: Yes.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
My only comment is I think the Commission was right,
and I think everyone connected with this deal did a helluva job.
I congratulate you, Mr. Rosenthal, and the Director and everyone
else. It's a long time in coming, took a lot of work, a lot of
hours .
MR. TDRPEN: Thank you, sir.
MR. BERNSTEIN: I think it was a job well done, and
perhaps we will go forward.
(Hearing adjourned at 10:42 a.m.)
0O0
Bay area court reporters
20993 Foothill. Suite 222
Hay ward, Ca 94541
(415)481 8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CODNTY OF ALAMEDA
) SS .
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of
California, hereby certify that foregoing Public Bearing was
taken at the time and place therein stated; that the proceedings
of said Public Bearing were reported by me, a Certified
Shorthand Reporter and disinterested person, and were thereafter
transcribed under ray direction into typewriting; that the
foregoing is a full, complete and true record of said hearing.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing
Public Bearing, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome of
the cause named herein.
IN WITNESS WBEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my seal this 25th day of January 1988.
WeBTTRLOTTE CERVANTVzrrcSR#44 8& "
Notary Public, State of California
Bay area court Reporters
20993 Foothill, Suite 222
Hayward, Ca 94541
(415)481-8009
41 Sutter. Suite 1222
San Francisco. Ca 94104
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
<y
DOCUMEN1 S DEPT.
MAR 1 1 1988
^UttUIC IJRPAPV
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 2, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEIM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
February 2, 1988
CALENDAR
SECTION
A.
B.
C.
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
December 1 , 1987; and,
January 5, 1988
Special meeting of
January 22, 1988
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Report on Boarding Area
' E' Lease - Oral Report
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
88-0018
88-0019
88-0020
PAGE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3-4
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Travel /Training: Oshkosh
88-0021
G.
POLICY:
Policy to Clarify Diversion
of Revenues
88-0022
5-6
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
3. Resolution Awarding Lease
Option - Host International
4. Airports Commission Budget,
Fiscal Year 1988/89
5. Exercise Option of Airport
Parking Management Operating
Agreement
6. Options of Rental Car
Concession Agreements
88-0023
88-0024
88-0025
88-0026
88-0027
88-0028
88-0029
88-0030
6-10
10
10
10-11
Authorization to Conduct a
Pre-Bid Conference - Hair
Salon 88-0031 11
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
8. Status of Master Plan and
Approval for Distribution of:
1) Airport's Response to
Comments on Working Paper 'A';
and, 2) Addendum to Working
Paper 'A' 88-0032 11
9. Type II Modification for
Contract No. 1753 - Under-
ground Storage Tank Removal
and Related Work 88-0033 11
10. Rejection of All Bids:
Contract No. 1626R - Cleanup
of Area Northwest of Plot 40 88-0034 11
11. Award of Contract 1823: New
Security Facilities at Boarding
Area 'D', Intern'l Terminal,
to Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass
Company for $164,057 88-0035 11
12. Authorization for the City of
Burlingame to Extend the
Pedestrian/Bike Path at the
Shoreline Bird Sanctuary 88-0036 11
CORRESPONDENCE:
SuperShuttle' s comments re:
new $4.00 Airporter service 12
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO
CLOSED SESSION: 12
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
February 2, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the following meetings were unanimously adopted
No. 88-0018
No. 88-0019
No. 88-0020
Regular meetings of December 1, 1987
and January 5, 1988; and,
Special meeting of January 22, 1988
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti ,
Commission Secretary announced the
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0017 regarding the settlement of a
litigated claim at the closed session
of January 22, 1988.
E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
1 . Report on Boarding Area 'E' Lease - Oral Report
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business & Finance, said that
the Board of Supervisor's Governmental Operations Committee has been
awaiting a report from Grant Mickens, Director of the Human Rights
4ommission since November before considering the award of the
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 3
Boarding Area 'E' lease to Duty Free Shoppers. Mr. Mickens had
recently indicated that his report would be considered by the Human
Rights Commission at its January 14. On January 11 Mr. Mickens
informed staff that the report was not complete and the item would be
calendared for the January 28 HRC meeting. On January 27 staff
learned that the January 28 meeting had been cancelled. Ms. Gittens
said that at this time staff does not know when Mr. Mickens will
present his report to his Commission. To her knowledge, HRC's next
meeting is February 11. She added that the delay in awarding this
lease is costing the Airport $110,000 a month in lost revenue.
Commissioner Goosby said that an effort is being made by the Board of
Supervisors to have the Human Rights Commission divested of the
implementation of the MBE ordinance.
Ms. Gittens said that the Rules Committee will be discussing a
proposed Charter Amendment at its meeting today.
Commissioner Flei shell asked if any attempt had been made to advise
the Mayor of this situation.
Ms. Gittens responded that the new Mayor has not yet been informed.
Commissioner Fleishell said that while the Mayor is facing a serious
budget deficit and trying to find ways to cut expenditures and
maximize revenues, this money is being wasted.
Ms. Gittens responded that the Commission had decided to. wait until
HRC's January 28 commission meeting. She said that it would be
appropriate to get some action.
Commissioner Fleishell said that the Commission should write to the
Mayor advising him on the background of this issue.
Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, said he would take care of it.
Commissioner Tsougarakis noted that a representative of the Mayor's
Office was present.
Commissioner Goosby added that the $1 -mi 1 1 i on being spent in customs
on free carts at Herb Caen's urging should be looked at.
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Goosby introduced a resolution approving travel to Oshkosh,
Wisconsin to inspect fire equipment. He added that this travel would not
be at the Airport's expense.
The resolution was unanimously adopted.
No. 88-0021
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 4
G. POLICY:
The following item was unanimously adopted.
2. Policy Regarding Diversion of Revenues
No. 88-0022 Policy to clarify Diversion of Revenue
clause in Airport Concession Lease.
Mr. Turpen said that this resolution clarifies the meaning of the
term "diversion", found in the Airport's boilerplate retail
concession leases. He recommended adopting the resolution in order
to avoid confusion and misunderstandings on the part of tenants,
since all of the Airport's leases contain that language. He said
that this resolution was derived from individual conversations with
Commission members.
Mr. Turpen said that in 1980 or 1981, when the Airport put together a
revised standard lease format, the diversion clause was one of a
number of clauses inserted. He said felt that some framework around
this clause is warranted and will serve to guide tenants in their
conduct and activities. Without it, it is left in a gray area.
Mr. Turpen said that the key element is when a tenant, either by
overt or covert means, induces people away from the Airport to
conduct business that they would otherwise conduct on the Airport.
If a rental car employee, for example, tells a client that if he
rents a car in town rather than at the Airport he will receive a
discount, it is a clear intent to divert revenue. He likened this
situation to the issue of solicitation with respect to ground
transportation. He explained that if a patron wants to take a
certain ground transportation service at the Airport he has every
right to do so. The conflict comes into play when a patron is
induced away from his intended course by some action on the part of
the concessionaire.
Commissioner Goosby asked if it would be a violation if a rent-a-car
company placed billboards in downtown San Francisco stating that
renting a car in town is cheaper than renting a car at the Airport.
Mr. Turpen felt that if a client is in downtown San Francisco and
didn't come through the Airport, there is a reasonable expectation
that that individual would not come out to the Airport to rent a
car. He did agree, however, that such a large sign in Union Square
might be a violation.
Commissioner Bernstein suggested that staff contact a realtor, like
Ed Plant, who would explain different leases.
Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the biggest concern would be with
Airport rent-a-car agencies offering shuttle service into San
Francisco where a client would then receive a 10 percent discount.
Mr. Turpen said that there is no clear definition of diversion in the
clause; that determination has been left up to the Director on a case
by case basis up to this point. He felt it important that the
Commission formalize its view and said that the resolution before the
Commission provides the framework to make case by case determinations.
Commissioner Bernstein asked if it wouldn't be simpler to get a
percentage of a tenant's downtown business.
Mr. Turpen said that although the current boilerplate leases couldn't
be amended at this time, a review would be worthwhile.
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 5
Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the concept was valid.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if it would be a violation for a car
rental company to list separate rates for the Airport and downtown in
a brochure.
Mr. Turpen responded that he would want time to take a look at that
rather than respond casually.
Commissioner Fleishell felt that it would be a violation under the
language of this resolution.
Mr. Turpen added that this resolution says that companies have a
contractual obligation with the Airport and they pay a fee for
certain rights. If they exercise their rights but deny us our money,
then that action is in violation of the spirit of our agreement.
Commissioner Fleishell suggested that staff take a look at the
non-Airport car rental companies. They advertise that their rates
are cheaper because they don't pay a fee to the Airport. He said
that one company even uses the Airport logo.
H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Item No. 3 was unanimously adopted as amended.
3. Resolution Awarding Lease Option - Host International
No. 88-0023 Resolution exercising ten-year option
on the Host International Food and
Beverage Lease.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airports Commission is considering an option
to the Host/Marriott food and beverage lease. The concept of that
option originated in October 1985 and involves two elements. The
first element involves Host/Marriott relinquishing approximately 30
percent of their terminal space equating to approximately 30 percent
of their revenue for minority/women business opportunity. The second
element, which surfaced about a year ago, was the concept of price
control. Under this concept, the Airport would exercise some control
over prices using a set formula, a market basket, establishing a
definite tangible mechanism for determining the appropriate price of
many of the food items offered at the Airport. He said that both
issues are combined in the proposal before the Commission but the
final lease is not before the Commission. Mr. Turpen said that the
final concept contains the following: Host will sublease 10
facilities in three phases. Those facilities generate approximately
Ill-million in revenue. There will be two restaurants/bars, a snack
bar and an ice cream parlor in phase one; a public cafeteria and an
employee cafeteria in phase two; and, in phase three, a restaurant,
two bars and an ice cream facility.
Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has been through this repeatedly.
He asked that the Commission grant requests to speak on this matter
and then direct staff to proceed to finalize the documentation.
Commissioner Bernstein recommended postponing action for 30 days in
order to brief the Mayor and his staff on what has been done.
Mr. Turpen responded that he would still like the Commission's
approval to finalize the documents while staff is in that process.
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 6
Commissioner Bernstein felt that the new administration should have
the opportunity to review this issue. He felt that staff should also
sit down with the various minority communities to discuss their
problems and fears.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if the item is simply put over for
30 days without direction to finalize the documents, those 30 days
will be lost. She explained that Mr. Turpen was suggesting that the
Commission direct staff to finalize the documentation, work with the
Mayor's Office and anyone having questions, then return to the
Commission with a final version next month. She said she agreed with
this approach and felt that proceeding with the paperwork would be in
everyone's best interest.
Mr. Turpen added that he wanted approval to proceed with the
documentation but did not expect Commission approval for the option
until the final documentation has been presented. He said that
Commissioner Bernstein's concerns could be addressed within the next
thirty days in addition to working on the language.
Commissioner Goosby agreed that staff should be directed to define
the language without committing the Commission to an approval. He
agreed that staff should sit down with the Mayor's Office and the
minority community to work out any differences. He felt it would
behoove staff and the minority/women business community to negotiate
with Host.
Mr. Turpen said that it is particularly important that this action be
taken to alert people that there is an additional 30 days in which to
offer input into this process.
Commissioner Fleishell said he did not object to staff moving ahead.
Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that this all began in October,
1985 and since that time pages of history have been written, and
public meetings and meetings with the communities have been held.
The community must understand that the Commission has established a
deadline and at the end of the 30-day period the Commission will take
action, one way or the other.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said she felt very strongly about this and
would like to see the facilities operating as soon as possible.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that Commissioner Stephens's letter to
the Director in which he objected to the pricing concept be added to
the record. She also noted that Commissioner Stephens did not make
mention of the minority issue in his letter.
Commissioner Goosby commented that Commissioner Stephens has not been
on the Commission long enough to realize that it has long been the
policy of the Airports Commission to equate the price of items sold
at the Airport with providing service to the traveling public. This
is not purely a dollar and cents issue. He said that the Commission
has been trying to break Host's lease for 10 years, not because they
haven't been providing a service but because the Commission wanted
minority participation. Now, Host is agreeing to minority
participation in exchange for a 10 year extension.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he not only wanted to see the
paragraphs that will be changed in the document but the breakdown of
the particular restaurants, as well as their earning histories to
determine whether or not it's a good deal for minorities and women.
He said that at $1,325,000, the operator of a restaurant would have
to gross $228,000 per month in order to pay the Airport $34,000 per
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 7
month in rent. The payment on a fifteen year note would be $18,251 a
month. Commissioner Fleishell said that if he had $1.3-million he
would put it in the bank at eight percent and get $132,000 per year
and live well at no risk. He said that the Commission has a duty to
make sure the deals are good ones.
Commissioner Fleishell said he met with two representatives from Host
and his experience in this area is that when an operator owns
multiple restaurants separate sets of books must be kept in order to
know if a profit is being made and if the type of food the patrons
want is being served. He said that since Host does not keep separate
books on each restaurant it will be difficult for a minority who does
not have expertise in bookkeeping and accounting to know whether he
is getting a good deal. He said he would like a better breakdown of
what the Airport will be getting.
Commissioner Fleishell concluded his comments by saying that one of
the reasons for doing this is to give the Airport the right to
control pricing yet in reading a copy of the lease he discovered that
the Airport already has that control. He said that paragraph 7A of
page 13 states that the lessee must abide by all of the applicable
laws of the City and County of San Francisco, one of which created
the Human Rights Commission and the right to have minority
participation. He also said that the argument that a prior lessee
cannot be bound by a subsequent law does not hold true. The airlines
are suing the Airport because they have been asked to comply with the
prevailing wage ordinance which was adopted seven years after they
signed their leases.
With respect to Commissioner Fleishell 's first comment, Mr. Turpen
said that the Airport has been very aggressive in objecting to price
problems and that the Airport is being due processed to death on this
issue. The Airport saw an opportunity to take it out of a gray area
and place it in very definite formula base language.
With respect to the minority issue, Mr. Turpen said that he was not
aware that the Airport could require Host to commit 25-30 percent of
its space to minorities. If that were the case he would ask the City
Attorney for confirmation and staff would proceed along that line.
Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that Host is
complying with all of the applicable affirmative action requirements
at the present time. The laws to which Commissioner Fleishell
referred do not reach the issue of subleasing space to minority and
small business operators. That cannot be mandated through the
existing ordinances the way they are written.
Commissioner Fleishell asked about the existing problem with Duty
Free, where they have been required to sublease 30 percent of their
space.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airport has not made that requirement of
Duty Free, nor will the law allow it.
Commissioner Goosby said Duty Free was doing it voluntarily.
Commissioner Fleishell said he would make the rest of this comments
privately.
Commissioners Bernstein and Goosby agreed that any comments should be
made publicly, now, so that they could be addressed by staff and the
communi ty .
Mr. Turpen said he would return to the Commission in two weeks with
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 8
the final lease document and the matter would then be rescheduled for
the March 1 Commission meeting.
Commissioner Goosby said that the document lists two categories, one
for minority/women business and the other for small business.
Ms. Gittens said that the requirements will contain small business
set asides for those facilities that would otherwise qualify as small
businesses. The cookie shop or one of the ice cream parlors would be
required to be sublet to a small minority or small women's business
within the thirty-four percent.
Ms. Gittens said that the definition is a combined $2-mi 1 1 ion gross
for one principal participating in a business with other principals;
the facility itself can only gross $600,000 if there is only one
individual involved. She said that those facilities expected to
gross $600,000 or less would be required to be sublet to a small
minority or small women's business.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Human Rights Commission definition
of small business is different from ours. He said he saw HRC's
letter to the Airport requesting that the Airport's percentage match
the City's ordinance and felt that made a lot of sense.
Ms. Gittens pointed out to the Commission that this does not come
within the guidelines of the ordinance.
Commissioner Goosby said that although it is not mandated by the
ordinance, the Commission can voluntarily do it.
Ms. Gittens said that was true. She said that according to HRC and
City Attorney's Office interpretations of the ordinance, this will
not be counted.
Commissioner Goosby said that does not matter to the Commission. The
Commission is trying to achieve affirmative action. Credit is
incidental .
Commissioner Goosby said that if having the special set aside for
small business doesn't unduly complicate Host's implementation of
this agreement he has no objection to it. He does feel, however,
that another layer has been added.
Ms. Gittens responded that that has been a feature of this from the
beginning. No objections were made at either of the two public
conferences.
Commissioner Goosby said that the ordinance was passed after much
debate and to vary from it indicates that advantage is not being
taken of those debates and the democratic process that went into the
passage of that ordinance. In addition, the wording in that
ordinance refers to attempting an equitable representation of the
various minority groups in San Francisco. He said that Duty Free
voluntarily complied in the International Terminal and felt that had
the minority community been aware of Duty Free's cooperation they
would not have attacked their downtown operation.
Ms. Gittens responded to Commissioner Goosby' s comments by saying
that he had an excellent point about the MBE/W6E/L6E ordinance having
been the subject of a great deal of debate and having been crafted
very carefully. She said that the Airport staff was involved in that
debate and in the crafting of that ordinance and she found it very
difficult to be unemotional about the fact that elements that staff
clearly had included in the ordinance and in the rules and
Minutes, February 2. 1988, Page 9
regulations have been taken away from the Airport in the principal
concession program. The Airport was very proud of that program and
it was discussed very carefully with the City Attorney's staff and
with HRC's staff working on the ordinance and with the City
Attorney's staff working on the rules and regulations with the
Airport. She said that the Airport was assured that the principal
concession program was protected and then, suddenly, it wasn't. She
explained that that is why she reacts to statements that staff should
stick to the ordinance.
Items 4 through 7 were unanimously adopted.
4. Airports Commission Budget, Fiscal Year 1988/89
88-0024 Resolution approving the proposed
Fiscal Year 1988/89 budget of
$1 54 . 5-mi 1 lion.
Mr. Turpen said that the airlines voiced three concerns which are
contained in his January 21, 1988 memo to the Commission. He asked
for Commission approval of the budget.
Exercise Option of Airport Parking Management Operating Agreement
No. 88-0025 Resolution exercising third one-year
option for the Airport Parking
Management Operating Agreement.
Mr. Turpen explained that this is the third of five one-year options
under section 10 of the original agreement with Airport Parking
Management, effective July 1, 1988. The Airport is obligated to
secure Proposition J analysis of a comparison of in-house versus
contract economies.
6. Option for Rental Car Concession Agreements
Five resolutions authorizing the
fifth and final one year option for
each of the current on-Airport rental
car operators .
Mr. Turpen said that this concession will go out for bid with the
completion of this last one-year option. Staff will return to the
Commission to discuss the long-term physical location of rent-a-cars
at the Airport as part of the Master Plan.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the consultant has addressed that issue.
Mr. Turpen responded that the consultant is just getting into it and
it should be in the Commission's hands within six to eight weeks. He
said that staff will be presenting descriptions of locations and the
structure and would be part of the re-bid.
No.
88-
-0026
No.
88-
-0027
No.
88-
-0028
No.
88-
-0029
No.
88-
-0030
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 10
Authorization to Conduct a Pre-Bid Conference - Hair Salon
No. 88-0031 Resolution authorizing staff to
conduct a pre-bid conference for a
Hair Salon.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Items 8 thorugh 12 were unanimously adopted.
8. Status of Master Plan and Approval for Distribution of: 1) Airport's
Response to Comments on Working Paper 'A'; and, 2) Addendum to
Working Paper 'A'
No. 88-0032
Type II Modification for Contract No. 1753 - Underground Storage Tank
Removal and Related Work
No. 88-0033 Resolution approving time extension
for Airport Contract No. 1753 from
February 2, 1988 to February 2, 1989
maintaining the same unit cost
structure.
10. Rejection of All Bids
Airport Contract No. 1626R -
Cleanup of Area Northwest of Plot 40
No. 88-0034 Resolution rejecting all bids received
for Contract No. 1626R.
11 . Award of Contract 1823 :
New Security Facilities at Boarding Area 'D', International Terminal ,
to Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Company for $164,057
No. 88-0035 Security check facility will be
reconstructed to reflect new procedure
and to provide crowd control.
Commission approved budget is $172,000.
12. Authorization for the City of Burlingame to Extend the Pedestrian/
Bike Path at the Shoreline Bird Sanctuary
No. 88-0036 Resolution approving the extension of
the pedestrian/bike path at the
Shoreline Bird Sanctuary by the City
of Burlingame onto a portion of
Airport Property.
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 11
CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Bill Lazar, President of SuperShuttle, asked the Commission for
permission to speak. He said that it has been rumored in the news that
Airporter is planning to reinstitute service from the lower level of the
Airport to their downtown terminal for $4.00, under a permit structure of
35?!. He asked if that permit is available to other providers or if there
is a list on which an operator could be placed. He asked where that
authorization is found in the rules.
Commissioner Goosby said that it was his understanding that Airporter
would be hiring non-union drivers and that staff was checking to make sure
they would be conforming with the prevailing wage concept.
Mr. Lazar asked under what authority does Airporter have the right to
provide service from the lower level for 350.
Mr. Turpen said he would take a look at it and get back to Mr. Lazar.
L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 10:02 AM to go into closed session.
jjein Caramatti
commission Secretary
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 12
D. R. Stephens & Company
January 28, 1988
**
Mr. Louis A. Tureen
Director of Airports
P. O. Box 8097
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, CA 94128
&
RE: Host Options
Dear Lou:
I will be unable to attend the February 2, 1988, Airport
Commission meeting since I will be out of the State on business.
In the event you feel it is necessary that the Host motion be
brought to a vote, I would like, for the record, to be clear in regard to my
opposition to the granting of an extension to the Host lease. Further, I
believe the other Commissioners should consider the ramifications of taking
this step.
Firstly, it is my understanding that the Commission already
has the opportunity to adjust the prices charged. Accordingly, the benefits
set forth in earlier meetings that Host would change their pricing is illusory.
Secondly, it is my feeling that, if there were ever a time when the lease
could be freely and competitively bid, the income to the airport would be
dramatically in excess of the income that Host is paying or that is
contemplated to be received under the extension of the lease. In the past,
the lease has always been negotiated under circumstances which precluded
competitive bidders from participating.
Accordingly, I feel \\
other involved parties that no/extension
International at this time anc
interest of the City and the
w lease be given to Host
ord to so state.
DRS:ab/028/DRSC
cc: Honor a ble Art Agnos
Mr. Morris Bernstein
Mr. J. Edward Fleishell
Dr. Zuretti L. Goosby
Mr. Athena Tsougarakis
or Sax Fbakcisco BtriLDnro • BSO Moktoomebt Stbei
Teicth Flooi ■ Sax Fbaxcisco e*m • <*1S) 7818000
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
2
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
i 3 1983
SAN FRAIJuioCO
PltRI IO I IHMAPV
MINUTES
MARCH 1, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EOWARO FLEISHELL
Vice-President
OR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEIM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
March 1 , 1988
CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION
SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE
CALL TO ORDER: 3
ROLL CALL: 3
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
February 2, 1988 88-0041
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
1 . Host Lease Option 4
2. Entertainment Center/Video
Game Room - Authorization
to Bid 88-0042 4
3. Close-Out Professional Services
Agreements and Construction
Contracts for South Terminal
Reconstruction Program:
Group 4/Archi tecture Research
& Planning, Architects for South
Terminal West Entrance Bldg. 88-0043 4-5
Marquis/Wong & Brocchini/
Associates, Architects for
South Terminal Renovation 88-0044 4-5
Contract 1410EF, South
Terminal Renocation, Phase
II and Tunnel 'C Renovation 88-0045 4-5
Contract 1410ABCD, South
Terminal Renovation, Phase I,
West Entrance Building, Tunnel
'A' & Boarding Area 'A' 88-0046 4-5
G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
4. Bid Call : Contract 2023A -
Traffic Barriers - Airport
Guard Shelters & Cancellation
of Contract No. 1736, Traffic
Controllers Airport Guard
Shelters 88-0047 5
5. Tenant Improvement Guide -
Supplement No. 4 88-0048 5
6. Travel /Training for Airport
Representatives 88-0049 5-6
CORRESPONDENCE:
Status of Duty Free 6
Administrative Hearing on
Q707 6
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION:
Minutes. March 1 , 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
March 1 , 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Morris Bernstein, President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 1988 were adopted by
order of the Commission President.
No. 88-0041
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of reso-lution nos.
88-0037, 88-0038 and 88-0039 regarding
settlements of litigated claims at the
closed session of February 2, 1988.
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners
Minutes. Ma' ch 1 , 1988, Page 3
F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following item was put over to the call of the Chair.
1 . Host Lease Option
Resolution authorizing approval of
Host Lease Option.
The following items were unanimously adopted.
2. Entertainment Center/Video Game Room - Authorization to Accept Bids
No. 88-0041 Resolution approving leasehold
specifications and authorizing
Director to accept bids for the
Entertainment Center/Video Game Room
in the North Terminal Building.
3. Close-Out Professional Services Agreements and Construction Contracts
for South Terminal Reconstruction Program
Resolutions closing out four contracts
by fixing final contract price and
authorizing Director to accept work as
completed and adjust final contract
price as required by contract and
City's Administrative Code. Neither
City nor consultants/contractors has
claim against the other.
No. 88-0043 A. Group 4/Archi tecture Research &
Planning, Architects for South
Terminal West Entrance Building —
Final contract price: $646,243.34.
No. 88-0044 B. Marquis/Wong & Brocchini/
Associates, Architects for South
Terminal Renovation — Final
Contract Price: $3,597,265.00.
No. 88-0045 C. Construction Contract 1410EF,
South Terminal Renovation, Phase
II, and Tunnel 'C Renovation —
Final Contract Price:
$35,070,622.59.
No. 88-0046 D. Construction Contract 1410ABCD,
South Terminal Renovation, Phase
I, West Entrance Building, Tunnel
'A', and Boarding Area 'A' —
Final Contract Price:
$28,903,105.52.
Commissioner Stephens asked who the contractors were on the last two items,
Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction,
responded that one was Tutor-Sal iba and the other was Williams and Burrows.
Commissioner Stephens asked if the problem with Williams and Burrows had
been resolved.
Minutes , March 1 , 1988, Page 4
Mr. Yuen responded that the problem had been resolved. The arbitrator
sided with the Airport and recommended the award that staff had previously
recommended to the Commission.
Commissioner Goosby asked if this was the last problem with the architects.
Mr. Yuen responded that there is one more architect, Anshen Allen, with
whom the Airport must negotiate.
Commissioner Goosby asked that the architectural consultant prepare a
report for the Commission on how minority architects were involved in the
last phase of remodeling. He also suggested that the consultant provide
his thoughts on whether or not he felt the venture was successful.
Mr. Yuen responded that the consultant intends to prepare such a report
after Anshen Allen has been resolved.
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
4. Bid Call: Contract No. 2023A Traffic Barriers - Airport Guard
Shelters and Cancellation of Contract No. 1736, Traffic Controllers
Airport Guard Shelters
No. 88-0047 Resolution (1) Approves the scope,
budget and schedule for Contract No.
2023A, Traffic Barriers - Airport
Guard Shelters and authorizes the
Director of Airports to call for bids
when ready; and, (2) Cancel Contract
No. 1736, Traffic Controllers Airport
Guard Shelters. This contract was
replaced in part by Contract No. 2023A.
5. Tenant Improvement Guide
Supplement No. 4
No. 88-0048 Proposed resolution amending the
Tenant Improvement Guide (dated July
1, 1982 Revised - Commission
Resolution No. 82-0141) to include new
limits of heavy metals; and adopting
regulations on Hazardous Materials
Emergency Response and Inventory; and
amending Appendix D, Storage of
Hazardous Substances in Underground
Tanks.
6. Travel /Training for Airport Representatives
No. 88-0049
Commissioner Bernstein asked which staff members would be going to
the conferences listed.
Minutes, March 1 , 1988, Page 5
Mr. Turpen responded that staff tries to forecast the conferences the
Airport would be interested in attending. Because the approval
process so lengthy, staff routinely asks for approval for more trips
than are attended. He said that out of the list of conferences staff
selects, only 20-25 percent are attended.
Commissioner Goosby said that while Mayor Feinstein discouraged
Commissioners from participating in these conferences, he felt they
provided a good opportunity for Commissioners to become more
knowledgeable about airport problems. He said he would be interested
in the current Mayor's attitude on this issue.
Commissioner Tsougarakis added that she assumed that Commissioners
would be willing to pay their own expenses.
Commissioner Stephens agreed that it might be beneficial for a
Commissioner to attend some of these conferences but agreed that it
should not be at the Airport's expense.
H. CORRESPONDENCE:
Ms. Gittens said that the Human Rights Commission has finally voted on the
two complaints filed by Mr. Washington against Duty Free Shoppers. She
said that HRC has voted to accept the conciliation agreement that the HRC
staff and a three member panel of their Commission negotiated with Duty
Free. It was approved at the February 25 meeting.
Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if she knew the terms of the
agreement.
Ms. Gittens responded that the resolution was not specific to the various
terms of the agreement, but she would get them from HRC. She said that
HRC found no merit in the issue of falsification of employee records which
was the main issue affecting the Airports lease. She reminded the
Commission that Mr. Washington alleged that he had reason to believe that
Duty Free had over-stated its employment of blacks, but that was found not
to be the case.
Ms. Gittens told the Commission that Mr. Mickens had told her that he
would write to the Governmental Operations Committee of the Board of
Supervisors and ask them to recalendar the item, so it should appear one
week from today. She explained that the approval process is still a month
away as the item must go before the full Board twice after it leaves the
Governmental Operations Committee, and then to the Mayor for signature.
Mr. Turpen commented that this issue was resolved as staff predicted it
would be six months ago. He said that no other conclusion was possible
under the laws of the City. He assured the Commission that staff would do
its very best to work expeditiously to get this in place.
Mr. Turpen said that staff will provide the Commission with a full summary
of the events as well as a copy of the agreement.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that starting the week of May 2 and running
for approximately for two weeks, the hearing on the Q707 will be conducted
in San Francisco by Judge Kane, an Administrative Law Judge. Mr. Turpen
thought that the hearing would be held in the Federal Court building.
Minutes, March 1 , 1988, Page 6
3. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:17 AM to go into closed session.
UuuUiuJk"
Jgan Caramatti
/mmission Secretary
Minutes, March 1 , 1988, Page 7
5 SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS O^PT.
MAY 4 is@e
SAN FRANv,«^
MINUTES
APRIL 5, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
April 5, 1988
CALENDAR
AGENDA
SECTION
ITEM
TITLE
A.
CALL TO ORDER:
B.
ROLL CALL:
C.
ADOPTION OF MI
Regular Meeting of
March 1, 1988
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
88-0050
PAGE
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Mobile Catering Truck Operators
"New Business" Heading for
Commission Calendars
3-4
9
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Requestion the California
Public Utilities Commisison
(PUC) to Place a Moritorium
on New or Pending Licenses for
Ground Transportation Carriers
Proposing to Serve San
Francisco International Airport
Selection of a Financial
Advisor
Resolution Awarding the
Foreign Currency Exchange
Lease
Design Review: Boarding Area
'E' Retail Concession Lease
88-0051
88-0053
88-0052
5-6
6-7
7
7
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Retirement Resolution for
Charles C. Athas
Retirement Resolution for
Leo Benedetti
88-0054
88-0055
Type II Modification for
Contract 1416C - Delta Air
Lines Facil ities - South
Terminal and Boarding
Area 'C
88-0056
8
8.
Resolution Correcting Lease
Modification
88-0057
8
9.
Rejection of All Bids:
Contract 2023A - Two Airport
Guard Shelters 88-0058 8
10. Contract No. 1727: Emergency
Pavement Repairs (1986-87) -
Agreement to Close Out Contract 88-0059 8
11. Rental Credit for Air France 88-0060 8
12. Travel /Training for Airport
Representatives 88-0061 9
CORRESPONDENCE: 10
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO
CLOSED SESSION:
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
April 5, 1988
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present: Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 1, 1988 were adopted by order
of the Commission President.
No. 88-0050
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Goosby asked that the Commission direct staff to conduct
further meetings with the catering truck operators, and, if possible, with
the tenants who use their services. He said that there seems to be a
certain amount of confusion and questions about livelihoods being
threatened and investments in equipment at risk. He thought it would be
beneficial for the Commission and staff to have this aired in order to
determine 1f further direction can be given.
Commissioner Goosby said it was his understanding that one catering
service has already received permission to operate on airline space but
that staff denied the permission.
Commissioner Fleishell commented that if the airline was offering leased
space there should be no problem.
Commissioner Tsougarakis proposed that staff meet with the operators to
determine if anything can be done to achieve an equitable resolution to
this situation so that the issues of service and safety are satisfied.
Commissioner Goosby said that some employee groups are upset because of
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 3
the distances they will have to travel to purchase food. He said that the
postal employees have reacted to this move and that a representative is
present to explain their concerns.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that the Airport embarked on a
program to try and relocate some of the mobile catering units from the
public right-of-way areas due to this impingement on the roadways and
other concerns. He said that each operator is currently required to
purchase a permit from the Airport for $100 a year. Staff felt that the
Airport as well as the operators would be better served if they operated
from leased property. The Airport would, in turn, forego the $100 permit.
Mr. Turpen said that while the concept seemed like a good solution,
problems arose as staff began to implement some of the particulars.
Mr. Turpen said that staff would meet with the operators having problems,
either individually or collectively, to try to come to resolution. He
assured the Commission that it was never the intention to put these
operators out of business or to "chase" them off the Airport; it was
thought to be a good generic solution to a problem. He said he was
certain staff could resolve the problems. Mr. Turpen said that the
operators will reserve the right to return to the Commission if their
concerns are not satisfactorily resolved.
Commissioner Stephens felt that Mr. Turpen' s idea was a good one and did
not feel it was necessary to hear comments from the operators at this time.
Commissioner Goosby said that one operator wanted to submit signed
petitions to the Commission and asked that those petitions be submitted to
the Commission Secretary. He felt that the operators should be allowed to
address the Commission if they wished.
Commissioner Stephens agreed but felt that staff should first be given the
opportunity to resolve this issue.
Commissioner Goosby argued that the operators still had the right to
address the Commission.
Commissioner Bernstein agreed with Commissioner Goosby. He asked Mr.
Turpen to meet with the operators.
Mr. Turpen said that staff would set up a meeting but added that he did
not think that every operator was having a problem.
Commissioner Goosby asked that the operators leave their names with Mr.
Turpen.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if the operator's concerns were not
resolved to their satisfaction they could appeal to the Commission at its
April 19 meeting. In the meantime, staff will meet at the Airport with
the operators to deal directly with individual concerns.
Commissioner Goosby asked that a "New Business" heading be added to future
calendars.
Minutes, Apri 1 5, 1988, Page 4
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Item No. 1 was put over to the April 19 meeting.
1 . Requesting the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to Place
a Moratorium on New or Pending Licenses for Ground Transportation
Carriers Proposing to Serve San Francisco International Airport
Airport staff is recommending that the
Airports Commission pass a resolution
requesting the California Public
Utilities Commission to place a
moratorium on new and pending applica-
tions from ground transportation
carriers desiring to provide service
to and from San Francisco
International Airport.
Mr. Turpen said that the Public Utilities Commission has indicated
that they would consider placing a moratorium on new or pending
licenses for ground transportation access to San Francisco Airport if
the Airports Commission made such a request. Mr. Turpen said that
while Greig Harvey is concluding his report and the California PUC is
in the midst of amending their rules and regulations, additional
carriers continue to be introduced into a very congested environ-
ment. He explained that most mass transit vehicles leave the Airport
with very few passengers so these carriers are not being introduced
because there is a problem satisfying demand.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this moratorium would not exceed
12-months. He felt that the PUC and Airport staff needed the time to
work together in order to come up with a better mechanism for
controlling access to SFO on the basis of demand and responsiveness
to demand as opposed to whoever applies.
Mr. Turpen urged the Commission's support on the moratorium and gave
his assurance that staff would return with some type of coordinated,
comprehensive plan for dealing with the issue of access to the
Airport.
Ms. Marcia Smolens, representing Super Shuttle, said that Super
Shuttle understood the Airport's problem with congestion and access.
She told the Commission that the Peninsula has difficulty obtaining
good service to the Airport and her company has been working to
expand service to that area. She requested a two-week continuance in
order to clarify any legal questions as to whether or not Super
Shuttle will be affected by the moratorium.
Mr. Turpen said that two weeks would not have a significant impact.
Commissioner Fleishell asked when Greig Harvey's traffic study would
be completed.
Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that she spoke with him yesterday
and he indicated that the report would be ready this week.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he has had the rough draft for four
months and has been waiting to hear from him.
Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that Mr. Harvey has taken on two
additional issues in the meantime and she felt the results of the
study will warrant the extra time he is taking.
Minutes, Apri 1 5, 1988, Page 5
Commissioner F 1 e i she 1 1 commented that there are other applications
pending with PUC. On the basic issue of licensing, he said that the
Airport should license vehicles rather than companies, which is the
current practice. He argued that one carrier might have only one
vehicle while another carrier might have 100 vehicles.
Commissioner Fleishell said he had no objections to a continuance.
Mr. Turpen said that this item will be placed on the April 19
calendar.
The following items were unanimously adopted.
2. Selection of a Financial Advisor
No. 88-0051 Resolution authorizing Airport staff
to request proposals from firms to
serve as Airport Financial Advisor.
Commissioner Stephens asked which companies would receive requests
for proposals.
Mr. Turpen responded that RFP's would be sent to every name staff can
come up with.
Commissioner Stephens assumed that Goldman Sachs and all the other
major firms would be included.
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance,
responded that 20 to 25 firms contacted the Airport before word was
out that Solomon Brothers was abandoning the municipal market.
Another 30 firms have contacted the Airport since that time.
Commissioner Stephens said that several people have contacted him.
Ms. Gittens asked for those names.
Mr. Turpen said that staff will send the Commission a list of persons
who have contacted the Airport or expressed an interest. He asked
the Commission to provide staff with any names not included on that
list.
Ms. Gittens reminded the Commission that this is for a financial
advisor not an underwriter. She said that while some firms handle
underwriting they do not function as financial advisors.
Commissioner Goosby highlighted the fact that the evaluation criteria
contains language indicating that joint ventures are eligible. He
asked how the five percent would be given.
Ms. Gittens responded that there would be a point scale and the
preference would be applied after the ranking.
Commissioner Goosby asked why the selection committee would consist
of other City employees rather than a panel of Airport people.
Ms. Gittens responded that Airport people will be included however it
Is a tradition in the City to include individuals from various
departments on these panels. She said that the Airport does not have
to follow that tradition, it was merely a suggestion.
Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if she felt it was an advantage.
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 6
Ms. Gittens responded that it can be if other departments have had
experience with other financial advisors and different deals. In the
event that there are a lot of applications to screen she said that
she would use the screening committee to pare the list down to a
manageable number rather than be faced with interviewing 10 or 12
firms.
Commissioner Fleishell asked why airline representatives were not
being included as they have more experience in airline financing than
anyone.
Ms. Gittens disagreed with Commissioner Fleishell, explaining that
this is not airline financing, it's Airport financing and Airport
revenue bonds.
Commissioner Fleishell said that airlines are the bottom-line
underwriters of our bonds. They do all the financing at every
airport in the country.
Ms. Gittens responded that unlike airline finance people, station
managers and airline property managers, the people with whom staff
deal, don't know anything about airport financing.
Commissioner Stephens suggested using airline finance people. He
felt that they would appreciate being included since the airlines, in
the end, would end up paying for a large percentage of a bad finance
package.
Ms. Gittens said that airline finance people can be invited.
Mr. Turpen said that there are airline people who have had that
exposure but many of them have retired.
Commissioner Goosby said that staff should make sure that those
individuals coming from outside City service understand the City's
priorities. He said he felt comfortable that other departments have
the same priorities and sensitivities to minorities, women and the
affirmative action program. He asked for a list of applicants.
Mr. Turpen said that this would simply be an advisory group. He has
no problem with seeking input from qualified people and putting that
input in the proper perspective. He felt that staff's track record
in that regard was well established. He reminded the Commission that
it has the right of acceptance or refusal of staff's recommendations.
Resolution Awarding the Foreign Curency Exchange Lease
No. 88-0053 Resolution awarding the Foreign
Currency Exchange Lease to Deak
International Limited
Mr. Turpen explained that this lease replaces the current operator of
the foreign currency exchange facility. He said that the successful
bidder, Deak International, operated at the Airport a number of years
ago.
Design Review: Boarding Area 'E' Retail Concession Lease
No. 88-0052 Design review of the four stores under
the Boarding Area ' E ' Retail
Concession Lease.
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 7
F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
5. Retirement Resolution for Charles C. Athas
No. 88-0054
6. Retirement Resolution Leo Benedetti
No. 88-0055
7. Type II Modification for Contract 1416C
Delta Air Lines Facilities
South Terminal and Boarding Area 'C
No. 88-0056 Contract modification to include
additional work requested by Delta Air
Lines and Airport. In accordance with
agreement between Airport and Delta,
the cost will be shared as follows:
Delta: $91,442.64; Airport: $31,196.00.
8. Resolution Correcting Lease Modification
No. 88-0057 Resolution correcting clerical error
in a prior modification of Lease and
Use Agreement No. 82-0125, Trans World
Airlines, Inc.
9. Rejection of All Bids :
Contract No. 2023A - Two Airport Guard Shelters
No. 88-0058 Resolution rejecting the two (2) bids
received for Contract No. 2023A.
10. Contract No. 1727 :
Emergency Pavement Repairs (1986-87)
Agreement to Close Out Contract
No. 88-0059 Resolution authorizing the Director of
Airports to execute an agreement
approving payment of monies not in
dispute to allow for closing out the
contract.
1 1 . Rental Credit for Air France
No. 88-0060 Resolution approving rent credit for
Air France for work performed on
behalf of the Airport.
Minutes, Apri 1 5, 1988, Page 8
12. Travel /Training for Airport Representatives
No. 88-0061
Discussion on Mobile Catering Truck Operations
Commissioner Goosby asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. He
said that petitions should be submitted to the Commission Secretary.
Mr. John Stevens, Kitchen on Wheels, said he currently operates a mobile
catering service at the Airport. He said he has been operating by permit
for 11 years and since that time he has put approximately $100,000 into
his operation. He said that he received a letter the other day cancelling
his permit for no reason.
Mr. Stevens said that for 10 years he has been trying to meet with Airport
staff to correct some of the problems. He added that his rental is $100
per month, not per year, and, he is required to carry insurance at a cost
of $18,000 per year.
Mr. Stevens said that since he has been at the Airport he has had two
heart attacks and his wife has had two cancer operations.
Mr. Stevens said that he does not know why United, AA or any other carrier
would have an obligation to give him work. He said that he has been
paying rent to the Airport for 11 years and he is about three miles from
the terminals. He asked what will happen to him when he is put off the
Airport and why his permit was being cancelled after 11 years.
Mr. Stevens said that if there is a meeting at the Airport he wants the
Commission to instruct Mr. Turpen to bring in a third party.
Mr. Stevens said that the other day he asked an Airport staff member why
his permit was being cancelled and she responded that she did not know.
He said that he asked for a letter assuring him that his permit was not
being cancelled so that his business could be taken over by another
operator. When he asked where he could go he said he was told that that
was his problem.
Mr. Stevens said that problems could be corrected with a meeting but was
told on several occasions that staff had no time.
Mr. Stevens said that he was put out of business at the Airport three
times and that he was put in his current location by Jerry Copelan, the
head of property management.
Mr. Stevens said that without a meeting these issues cannot be resolved.
Commissioner Goosby assured Mr. Stevens that there will be a meeting.
Mr. James Quiett, Jun's Catering, agreed with Dr. Goosby and felt it best
to wait for a meeting with staff in order to give the Commission, staff
and the catering truck operators an opportunity to reevaluate this issue.
He said that he had some ideas of his own.
Commissioner Bernstein said that staff will meet with the operators and if
there are further complaints they can return to the Commission at a
subsequent meeting.
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 9
* * *
G. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
* * *
I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:36 AM to go into closed session.
U++jujl-
L an Caramatti
/Cpmmi ssion Secretary
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 10
tkj siinorrs of thz utisid aiaLi::?^
To the Airports i/Onnlssion or To fhon It Lay Concern:
Jun's Catering is performing a much necccd service to us,
j.hey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and
serve a variety of fresh hone cooked dinners. .heir prices are
reasonable and within our ir.eans. *e never cpmplained about their
foods.
as everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 minutes lur.ch-
breaks and we San 1 1 have tine to ret in our cars aid loo:: for
food at ni^'ht.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 F.I . when almost all emplo-
yees have fone hone so there is very little traffic. xhey leave at
2:30 A. A.
Cn Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. 'A. and depart at 2.30 A.I.'.
3 unc ay.
Jun's Catering ha«: been and continous tc five this vital
service since 1S7S.
DO,we, the employe:- of the united Airlines respectfully
petition the Airport^ oonnis^ion or whoever is empowered to do so,
to ple_se allow our.' s aaterinf to perform this important and n:eded
Service to u r ,
*hanl:in~ you ever so much, we remain
Ver;7) re rr^ctfull;- your*,
*W
i. EiiPLOTz::s of the ukitel Jirlikes
To the Airports Comal sslon or To Ihom It May Concern t
Jun's Catering is performing a much needed service to us,
Thtj are eloseby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and
serve a variety of fresh home cooked dinners. Their prices are
reasonable and wltftln oar means. ■• never complained about their
foods.
as everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch-
breaks and we don't have time to get in our oars and look for
food at night.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 P.li, when almost all emplo-
yees have gone home so there is very little ttaifie.They leave at
2:30 A.L.
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A.Ll. and depart at 2:30 A. LI
Sunday.
Jun's Catering has been and contlnous to give this vital
service since 1979.
So, we, the employees of the United Airlines respectfully
petition the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to do so,
to please allow Jun's Catering to perform this Important and needed
service to us.
Thanking you ever so much, we remain
Yery respectfully yours,
4/ Xk feCW<^ QUJjhqdytLl
MO Mr UM s&tts/^fUj^^^
Wuri^MjaA
— ■ — •■ — ' f r^^ii'VP!
CuMJ±
H2 farzydZL^ s" \
! — 77
^*-0
fflfS
T>ay sA^ i» t^ &*.
D/W £t*>o£ *
j| f Ju^ y *•
s4* . ^^
\j
=>/.
^i
^SP N^M , _
*? faff fa CMl jjjjfj
SFooi/
$&>N/>
6foPK
^^
S's v/r ?
ZfoPj;
MU& sre fF
^■x^ r 3Jr£^ — £
j^Ls.
4- (l
/
0f
1'ni, J5KPL0TEES Cr TH2 H2RT2
To the Airports Commission or To Whom It Llay Concern:
Jun 1 s Catering is perf amine a much needed service to us.
They are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday,
and serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. Their prices
are reasonable and within our means. We have never complained
about their foods.
As every body knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch-
breaks and we don't have tine to £et in our cars and look for
foods at ni~ht.
On weekdays , they start at 5:00 F.I.'. when almost all the
enployees he.ve eone ho:.e so there i= very little traffic.
They leave at 2:30 A.I.'.
On Saturday , they start at S:00 A. II. and depart at 2:30
;..".:. Sunday,
Jun' s Caterin~ has been and continous to £ive this vital
service since 1S75.
So i we t tbe employees of the E2RTZ .respectfully petition
the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to do so,
to please alio*. Jur.' s Catering to perforr. this important and
needed service to us.
Thanking you ever so much, we reanin
Very respectfully yours,
L^2>
fiev^i-
■Atrq
if >
^Jp<&Jfr~K<i
<^2<^p^i
j^k^
Mc^z^r sf&
' *ttf 5-Fh
1'HE B15L01ES3 CF TEI AI3?.IC\I* AIRLII7E3
To the Airport uon~j ssion or io Whom It Lay Concern:
Jim- s Catering is performing a much needed service to as,
Ihey are closeby and they have £ood fresh sandwiches everyday,
and serve a variety of fre e h home-cooked dinner s.aheir prices
are reasonable and within our means. We have never complained
about their foods.
as everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 minutes
lunch break? and we dont have time to fet in our cars and look
for food at ni£*t.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 I,K when almost all
the employees have cone home so there is very little traffic.
They at 2:30 A.L
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A.:.: and depart at
2:30 A.!.: Sunday.
V-
Jun' s Catering has been continous to yive this vital
service since 1979.
So, we, the employees of the American Airlines
respectfully petition the Airport Commission or whoever empowered
to do so, to please allow Jun's Catering to perform this important
and needeo service to us.
Thankinc you ever so much, we regain
Very Kespe.ctfully yours,
■ ft""--»:
AUUK^o;
Ib^n^lf.'Ff' '4%
J.&
J.fytcy.^.21AiJ.Sy:.
/ ■) ' * '-■ t/\ / -
^3fe>_iW~
..U^--X.MMwc
-- 1 — - — r~i /
1,1 »i i< i* ' *
§i _ jfJL* ./_ *2 r_ i&> .f _ _ Ii*Oi 4 ^ b^
ll3&.&i^StJ&&
t- f f ± <■
U^^n btfjkov*'
^)-iJ.i^yl&'?.
I£i3jji^:
ST
- ■ ■ w
this firiPLOxsss on' Bustci*. aviatic::
•j.0 the Airports oom~i e sion or j.o Whoa it Kay Concern:
jun's catering is performing a much needeC service to us
A hey are closeby and they have cood fresh sandwiches everyday,
and serve a variety of fresh hone-cookec dinners. xheir prices
are reasonable and within our means. ne have never co-plained
about their foods.
As everybody knows, we have onlj 15 to 30 ainutes lunch-
breaks and we don't have tiae to cet in our cars and look for
food at ni~ht.
on weekdays , they start at 5:00 P,i:.when al:_o~t all the
eaployees have £one hone so there is very little traffic.
ahey leave at 2:30 A. I;. 5
un Saturday?, they start at 8:00 A.U.anc 7 depart 2;30 A.I.'.
^und ay .
uun's Catering has been and continous to £ive this vital
service since 197S.
oo,we,the eaployees of the cutier Aviation respectfully
petition the Airports i/omiission or whoever is empowered to do
so, to pleesc allow uun's Uat'rintfto pcrfora this important and
needed service to u c .
xhankin; you ever so much, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
VUL fit M 2SMMM.
To tlx Airports Commission or To Whon It Lay concern:
Jun' s Cateringiis performing a much needed service to us.
They are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday,
and serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. Their prices
arc reasonable and within our neans.We have never cocplaincd
about their foods.
as every body knows ,we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch-
breaks and we don't have tine to ge$ in our cars and look for
foods at night.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 F.il. when almost all the
employees have gone home so there is very little traffics
They leave at 2:30 A.£i.
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A, 1.1. and depart at
2:30 A. H. Sunday.
Jun' s Catering has been and continous to give this vital
since 1979.
So, we, the employe-is of the Dyn Airlines respectfully
pctitio:: the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to
do so, to please alio"' Jun' s Catering to perform this important
and needed service to us.
Thanking you ever so much, we remain
[ery respectfully yours,
^M^^^jJt^^Z^^.
I
XSS KL'-PLC^b Of TIC 1^113..::.. AIHLT.31
To $he Airports commission or io T.'hon It Lay Concern:
Jun's Catering is performing a much needed service to us.
.hey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday,
and serve a variety of fre!-h hone-cookeo dinner*. Their prices
are reasonable and within our means. «e have never complained about
their foods.
as every booy knows, re have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch-
breaks and we don't h^ve time to get in our cars and look for
foods at night.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 i-.;...when alr.ost all the emp-
loyees have gone home so there is very little traffic. Ihey
leave at 2:30 A.I."..
OnSSaturdays,they start at 8:00 A.:,., and depart at 2:30
A.!'., our.day.
«un*s Catering has been and continous to give this vital
service since 1979.
So, we the employees of the. Mexicana: Airlines, respectfully
petition the Airports Commission or whoever empowered to do so,
to please allow Jun' s catering to perform this important and
needed service to us.
a 1'hanking you ever so much, we remain
very respectfully yours,
r l^.H&;.
m^qM^JL-.m%.
o^ sx.„ -
^_MX-
tel: e;:ilcy3is cf t:::; cc:;'.x."z:'t:.l
To the Airports Connission or io Ihoa it Llay Concern;
Jun'a Catering is performing a nuch needed service to vs.
.hey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and
they serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. _heir prices
are reasonable within our aeans. nehave never complained about
their foods.
As everybody knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch-
breaks and we don't have tine to get in our cars and look for
foods at ni~ht.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 t'.k.when almost allthe enpio-
yeeshave gone hone so there is little traffic. They leave at 2:30
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A.'.!. and depart at 2:30 A.II.
Sunday.
dun' s Catering has been and continous to give this vital
service since 1979.
i*o,ve,the employees of the employees of the continental.
respectfully petition the Airports commission or whoever is
empowered to do so, to please allow dun's Catering to perform this
important and needed servicp^o/us.
L£C~i icing youyev/r/ so m/ch, we remain
VBty respectfully yoq
ft
zjfct£^&£^
<UZQ
-4^
A*
yg£
te.
^«
g^^
1; -7*ffi
SHi zJifLOYiio Of ThI AVIS
To the Airports Commission or xO ihon it May uoncern:
Juris Catering is ,perf orninc a much needed service to us.
xhey are closeby and they have iooC fresh sandwiches everyray,
anc" serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners, .heir price-
are reasonable and within our means. we have never complained
about their foods.
as every body knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch-
brealis and we don t have tine to £et in our cars and look f c r
foods at ni~ht.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 P.I.;, when almost all the
employees have rone hone so there is very little traffic,
xhey leave at 2:30 A.:.;.
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 /..I.:, ant depart at 2:30
A.:... bund ay.
Juivs Catering h£.s been and continouR to live thir vital
service- since 1979.
So, we, the employees of the /.vis respectfully petition
the Airports vomeis^ion or whoever is enpowerco to do so,
to please allow Jun s oaterinc to perform this important
and needed service to us.
ihankin^ you ever so much, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
i£E EI'-FLOTIJES CF TEE DELTA AlELIirES
To the Airport Connission or io nhom It Lay Concern:
Jun' s Catering is performing a much needed service to us,
ihey are closeby and they have gooc fresh sandwiches everyday,
and serve a variety of fresh hose cooked dinners. Their prices
are reasonable and within our means. we have never complained
about their foodr.
As everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 ninutes lunch
breaks and we don't have time to get in our cars and look for
foods at night.
un weekdays, they start at 5:00 t.l. when almost all the
employees have gone hone so there is very little traffic.
They leave at 2:30 A. I.:
On Saturdays, they st£jrt at 8:00 A.:, and depart at 2:30
A.M Sunday.
Jun' s Caterin;; has been and continous to give this
vital service since 1972.
So, we, the employees ofthe Delta Airlines respectfully
petition the Airport commission or whoever is papowered to do
so, to please allow Jun' s Catering to perform thi* important
and needed service to us.
Thanking you ever so much, we remain
Very Respectfully yours,
JL 6 ud y
333 oo tUteato MtfLgMM it* cfr
UaulL MOU*- ,7'.r MfKftltttG %!' JFJL:J50L"c>
3 x"f 7 (£M.£iOr<-uco -AOc- S
si^vt^ *K.«*CD wvc- <_> C\
Pft«x>?z*93 fcg; 9//^
NAI>S:
hXMLWLF
2% aJdcou^c^ 3r
THB EI^PLOTisES OP ASSOCIATED LIIXUSINE
To the Airport Commission or To >Thom It Llay Concern;
Jun' s Catering, is performing a much needle- service to us;
They are closely and they have rood fresh sandwiches everyday and
serve a variety of fresh hone cooked dinners. Their price- are
reasonable an: within our means. We never complained about their
foods.
As everybody kno'.v w: have only 15 to 30 minute- lunch breal:
and ^e don't have tine to cet in our cars and look for food at
nicht.
On weekdays, they start at 5;00 I.M when almost all
employees have rone hone so there is very little traffic. They
leave at 2:30 A.i'..
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. 11 and oepart at
2.30 :..:.: Sunday.
Jun' s Catering has been and continous to five tki* vital
service since 1975.
S0,".'o, the employees of the Associated Limousine
respectfully petition the Airport Commission or whoever is empo-
wered to do so, to please allov; Jun' 3 Catering to perform this
important and needed service to us.
Thanking you ever so much, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
• • •
•'--^- :
ADBL^ ,5:
JeUvJ £o&rf&
M hmm#pi5&
SbWQ fQJ^JU
S^JkO^ & C%
iJlB aKri.0X&£.5 or F S A
To the Airports uommission or 10 Whom it May uoncer/i :
dun's Catering is performing e much needed service to us.
-hey are closehy and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday,
anclserve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. xkeir prices
are reasonable and within our neans.*e have never complained
about their foods.
as everybody knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lur.ch-
break* anc" we don' t have tine to get in our cars and look for
food at night.
On weekdays , they start at 5:00 r. :.. when almost all the
employees have gone hone so there is very little traffic, -hey
leave at 2:30 A..'.:.
un Saturdays, they start at 8; 00 A.I."., and depart at 2:30
A.i-u. Sunday.
oun-s catering has been and continous to give this vital
service since 1S7S.
so.we the employees of the PSA , respectfully petition the
Airports commission or whoever is empowered to do so, to please
allow dun's Oaterinc to perform this important and n.eded service
to us.
"Thanking you ever so much, we remain
'BbJ
<3-
S5
faoPh
4iJL
[+n^L+
£L_
f^pj^uA^d±-
GLsdLz (gtAe*
<X2~
i CMS
3/9(5 /^v3. y ^A^ &>e Sa^o &s?l;aJ o Q^
3$ I- 3/s-f fli/£ ^/^ fO^CiSO. CA
4V0 La**L^ «Sfr g^a^avJ7g^
/C<£> 6-.s«, if £» M*-h,
THE E::iLCT"-I7 of tie air (F.aft service
To the Airport Connission or To Whon It Hay concern:
Jun' s Catering is perfor::in~. a audh needed service to u*.
They are clo=eby and they have good fresh sandriche^- everyday and
serve a variety of fr«sh hone-cooked dinners. Their prices are caa-
soiiable and within our me am. We never conplaine- about their foods.
As everybody knoTr* -rre have only 15 to 30 ninutes lunch
breaks and re don't have tine to get in our car^ and look for food
at ni^ht.
On weekdays, they start at 5:00 F.LI rhen all the employees
have gone hone so there is very little traffic. They leave at 2:30 A. 1.1.
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. II and depart at 2:30 A.LI
Sunday.
Jun' s catering hz* been and continou- to rive this vital
service since 1C79.
So,v:e the aircraft service employee'- respectfully petition
the Airport Comission or whoever is enpov.ered to do so, to please
allor Jun' s Catering to perform this inportant and needec" service to us
Thanking you ever so nuch,vre renain
Very Respectfully iour-,
/£s, rr %£o
ms:
/4s./- ^./:o
^sgr
l^gfg s J <?^^Jl jLUl .spa
$LJ^A (U* -f^
y. Ajx/ Pi jj/i&r
te>& £&»&.
rroe .sites.
£j£0
Fr)
r
JLk
L=.
SfO
pf^zz
SR^
4^4
&PxD
frt
g^O
1HE ELrLOYii-3 CF T.L, iXAi:i.. 1J3C .ami: "J"
To the Airport^ uonaission or j.o Y. r ho.". it May uoncsrii:
Jim' s Caterinr is perforrdnc a i.uch neeced service to us,
*hey are closeby anc". they have 5006 fresh sancwiches everyday and
serve a variety of fre"h hone-cooked dinnsr^.iheir prices arc
reasonable and within, our neans.We never complained about their
r t
foods.
As everyday knows we hafce only 15 to 30 ninutes lur.chireaks
and we don't have tine to £jet in our cars and look for food at
nirht.
un weekdays 1 "they start at 5:00 1 ..... when almost all emplo-
yers have cone ho..;e ,-o there is very little traffic. .hey leave
at 2.30 ;..;:.
Cn 3aturcayr.tr.cy start at 8:00 A. A ar.d dep.rt at 2i50 A. I..
Sun " ay .
dun's Catering ha? been ar.d ccntinoue to five this vital
service since 1S7S.
oo,T.'e,t-:e employees 01? the i<orthvest Airlines respectfully
petition the Airport- uo.:idssion or whoever is er.povere;" to do no,
to lpea^e allov dun' s Cataerin~ to perform this important and
nee'ed service to us.
.hanking you ever so nuch, ::e regain
»ery respec4£u>iy yours,
-&m^/>jz c ^y//
i
fHE EMPLOTfcES OF THE IORTff»EST AIRLINES
To the Airports Commission or lo Whom It May Concern:
Job's Catering is performing a such needed service to as,
They are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and
serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners .Their prices are
reasonable and within our means, fe never oeamlainad about their
foods*
As everyday knows we hate only 15 to 30 minutes lunchereaks
and we don't have tine to get In our ears and look for food at
might.
On weekdays, they start at 5x00 F.K. when almost all emplo-
yees have gone hone ,so there is very little traffic. They leave
at 2x30 A.M.
On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. la and depart at 2:30 A.U.
Sunday.
Jon's Catering has been and eontlnoue to give this vital
service since 1979.
3o,ve,the employees of the fcorthwesi Airlines respectfully
petition the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to do so,
to lpease allow Jon*s Cataering to perform this important and
needed service to as.
Thanking yoo ever so much, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
I^WiK L^dL nrvCr^ Y/Jb a*~-
k (A
t::i e::iloy^_" ct
To the Airports uonroission or to Whom It Lay Concern:
Jun' s Catering is performing a much needed service to u*.
Ihey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and
a variety of fresh hone-c. okec 3 dinners. Their prices are reason-
able and within our means. i»e have never complained about their
foods.
As evey^bpdy know- , we have only 15 to 30 minute c lur.chbraak
and we don't have tine to get in our c_rs and look for fooc at
night.
vn weekdays, they start at 5:00 P. I... when almost all employees
have cone home so there is very little traffic, ihey leave at 2 : 30A.id
On satur&L.ys, they start at 8:00 A.l.'.anc" depart at 2:30 A. II.
Sunday.
Jim's catering has been and continous to give this vital
service since 197S.
so, we, the employees of the Pan An respectfully petition
the Airports uomi<?sion or whoever is empowered to do so f to please
allow oun's Catering to perform this important an A rieeceo service
to us.
x hanking you ever so much, we remain
£R&
f^.-, ,/?/7A
pp fig
r tfj m^[
k/ *r>x
ZzAzLL
^L
JUN'S CAT3RISG
65S luoana Way
Pacifica.Ca. 94044
To the Airport Connission or To Whom It May Concern,
On Feb. 9 f 1933, we recieved a letter from the Airport
Connission stating that, effectisfl? April 15, 1933, catering trucks
will be prohibited Jroa conducting business on the Airport's unlea-
sed property.
That, in order to continue operating at the Airport,
we hove to obtain a non-terainal tenants approval to pari: on it's
premises and be treated as its vender.
The Airport recognizes that the catering truch ope-
rators provide a service that is both appreciated and needed 1 by
their non- terminal tenants.
Jun' s Catering serve? not only made- to -order fresh
sandwiches daily but also a variety of fre c h hone-cooked dinners.
The Connission has also cited that the reason for
terminating our perrj-ts is because we are blocking traffic.
Jun' s Catering would lite to inforn everyone that
it is the only catering truck that works nights and Saturdays when
there is very little traffic, since alnost all the employees have
gone hone.
We are law-abiding citizens and we have never been
involved in any accident in all of our nine years of service at
the Airpo.t.
The employees of the non-tcrminai tenants would like
us to continue giviiig then our vital and much needed service.
as proof of their intentions, we enclosed signed pe-
titions urging whoever is empowered to do so, to please let Jun 1 s
Catering to continue our service to then.
There are 15 different petitions from 15 different
airlines plus the Post Office.
These are the people who would like us to stay.
Hoping for a favorable consideration, wc remain.
Very respectfully yours,
Celso S.Hu(jberiz4 *p. Co-Owner
Conchita S.Huqueriza uo-Owner
mmm.m
Kay or Art Agnos
Kenbers of tlE San j-rancisco
Board of bupervisors
Alports Commission
RE: £ u. a' a, C_&te.ri_n£
653 I.oana ..'ay
Facifica,Ca. , 94044
(415) 355-3104
OwI-ZHB: Celso Huqueriza and Conc'.iita Huqueriza
'we, the owners and employees of the Associated Liuousir.es
of the San Francisco, strongly urce the retention of Jun's Cater-
ing as a food service vender at 3. P. C. Their business location
and schedule (hoad 6 and 2), weekdays 5:00 r,.... to 2:30 .-'..:.. and
Saturdays 8:00 ..,'., to 2:30 .-'...) are perfectly suited to our
irregular hours and v:e fine their reasonably priced, £.ood quality
food and service unavailable iron any other source near the air-
port. 3y prohibiting Jun' s Catering from operating at S.F.C. ,
you deprive some 90 Associated Limousine drivers and nany other
companies at a much needed anc" appreciated service.
tt
fa
.fy*-*2-
flAnrtft
f\it f^ f
A ddress
<ft9 tfivstsi Ave &
* yC
*~>
thi £ailoy-ES of different ccai...~i-~ th.-a dc
BUSII"E3" AT TliZ AIR PORT'.
To the Airport Commission or To TThom It May Concern;
Jun' s Catering is performing a much nice" of service
to us. They arc clo^eby and they have food fresh sandwiche*
everyday, anc" serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinner ".
Iheir prices are rea~onable and within our means. We have
never complained about their food*-.
As everybody knows, we have only 15to 30 minute^
lunch breaks and re don't have tine to ret in our cars anc'
loot for fooc" at ni^ht.
On weekd ays, they start at 5:00 ?..'.. when almost all
the employees have rone hone *o there is very little traffic,
ihey leave at 2:30 A. A..
On Saturday?, they "tart at 8:00.'. A", and depart at
2:30 JLK; Sunday.
Jun' ? Catering ha c been and continous to ; r ;ive this
vital service since 197S.
So, we, the employees of different companies that do
business at the airport respectfully petition the Airport
is
Commission or whoever empowered to do so, to please ellow
A
Jun' s Catering to perform this important and needed service to us.
Thanking you ever so much, we remain.
Very respectfully yours,
ILjd mt •
^f^A Jky L.
t
rtfine or cohPfiuy
(c/fl
CL^aSl
jit:
«\\fifrikMs'
Jkte-jkk&£> ,
.s^&i_U^.
J^iJ^E L
j^t^^r.
P^/ve/tit we f£ci ay itt 7£uck
Q]>f_^ >/jf-^
fJlAjfl
VjZJfc
usP^>
£f
"^^ j^j izi& az
W.
~^/ShJ^ 4<12rzXzf^^^
s
to^ la£
l *- ^^ -»j >^'
^^=
s>e
d-J~
/?.*£
B4
C<5>
^ZfiL
£^^rf^^?/^
£>P/V
J%7^L>pJft7^&
^\/
A^k^
^^ss^ ^
f^-^s^
-r&
Ja
L=.
TO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We heard news that effective April 15, 1988, the Airports
Commission will no longer allow Acosta Catering to park at certain
locations which are convenient and readily accessible for us.
As everybody knows we only have 15 to 30 minutes for our
breaks and we don't have sufficient time going around looking for
a place to buy food at night and the wee hours in the morning.
On weekdays, they start rendering service at 1:30 a.m. until
8:00 a.m., when there's hardly any food place that is open. In the
afternoon, they alternate hours with Jun's Catering when there is
very little traffic.
On Sundays, they start at 1:00 a.m. and depart at 12:00 midnight,
Acosta Catering serves fresh food daily at reasonable prices and we
have been happy with their services since I98I.
Therefore we, the employees working in the vicinity of the
airport respectfully petition the Airports Commission or whomsoever
is empowered to do so to please allow Acosta Catering to continue to
perform this important and much needed service to us.
Thanking you very much for your kind consideration, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
sry respectfully yours
Cfa'tM
aSjfc- Gw*v
>
Company
flip, at <3*'—
4^
TO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
We heard news that effective April 15 f 1988, the Airports
Commission will no longer allow Acosta Catering to park at certain
locations which are convenient and readily accessible for us.
As everybody knows we only have 15 to 30 minutes for our
breaks and we don't have sufficient time going around looking for a
place to buy food at night and the wee hours in the morning.
On weekdays, they start rendering service at ls30 a.m. until
8t00 a.m., when there fs hardly any food place that is open. In the
afternoon, they alternate hours with jun's catering when there is
very little traffic.
On Sundays, they start at It 00 a.m. and depart at 12s 00 midnight.
Acosta Catering serves fresh food daily at reasonable prices and we
have been happy with their services since 1981.
Therefore we, the employees working in the vicinity of the
airport respectfully petition the Airports Commission or whomsoever
is empowered to do so to please allow Acosta Catering to continue to
perform, this important and much needed service to us.
Thanking you very much for your kind consideration, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
Name
L &&> 7)crycJL
Company
UAL
m
«.
£&
y 7 ,
CO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN i
We heard news that effective April 15 . 1988, the Airports
Commission will no longer allow Acosta Catering to park at certain
Locations which are convenient and readily accessible for us.
As everybody knows we only have 15 to 30 minutes for our
breaks and we don't have sufficient time going around looking for a
place to buy food at night and the wee hours in the morning.
On weekdays, they start rendering service at It 30 a.m. until
8x00 a.m., when there! 8 hardly any food place that is open. In the
afternoon, they alternate hours with jun's catering when there is
trery little traffic.
On Sundays, they start at It 00 a.m. and depart at 12t00 midnight
Acosta Catering serves fresh food daily at reasonable prices and we
have been happy with their services since 1981.
Therefore we, the employees working in the vicinity of the
airport respectfully petition the Airports Commission or whomsoever
is empowered to do so to please allow Acosta Catering to continue to
perform. this important and much needed service to us.
Thanking you very much for your kind consideration, we remain
Very respectfully yours,
Name
: &<ZU<L
company
falsi H^r.Crerl.'J
SS£s
M fit.
Wane
/7?.Wa/ JijMA
ESS. MM Z
■ ILlLp ^^5
l<,/«ry A
■?H*f,
" pmpanv
CM. ^'juu 'lmc .
JkLhL 4/ .
1/^
I s;* i L ^ : ^
^2
c / /
f jg fc ^
.\,k^<~>,-
fotLLlLfik* foods
HL£l
'M,
~
'jtrrtw** fgg ££
^jg i/^.
LUfnteiU
Name
a
iff
unpany
Do JLJ. ^ A".> U^M~^<
&
U^ujtikJZ
r<
U
J^e^
tLa
^s
s^—
5s s 4
T>r:
^9?fc L*£%24&
t^^id^^L
\ tlva^
trAtLtfiZ
//"tfr^
Oj5-yw-a—
^^^
c9c-J
fa g ^^
fl&fl
ArzcFAFT services /vr f c
&Au
AA.
UjJA
/ Name
Albeit <4%<s6<
1^c4v^
2m. &-^c^
J \$OA^l~Li
^4a
'M-Wia-
£
g
%y(u^'
•a*-*\.<^>
-ft
U)e*JL^ AxAuvt"
^i
ppany
"*>
0>yj -/I/yz
Q.VPW
r/L7> >?/?
4 ^ y /
^
^-//
iLii,
M-Au
/7>^
// 1
£££
^
^■/'/ g .
M6
&&*!&*
<T73
^Ab
U^^ye^r
Wane
C ompany
^9^
is&A .^WA?
?9aaa^i
Z2
Cqal&lzzJz
£g
^
ASM A*y<yt^i *&Y^\c e
/9-S~/ y /free *«r~ ^c-TU'tr
TAiAiC(/A7i ( jr Truer **&-
UM iu.
XUM.
Ah
'■■
^.iV (fij&d?>l ' ; « / J KS ■- III I 1.- y J . «
' z&ha
6L
'U
~*Jj,SKiP,.
teecs*
£± (J ^h--^f-^i^:j~o
u£g~
rOr\VT\e-^X\ \&Vv »
Name
a C M
vU,v
— ■ r^
que* ^TtZigAM^i
doJU-y WWa* \\L\yp r'
0hch*£j}££lL
tL 4L Si^
^
lCQ-W^<>i>' fcM^l^lo-yA/^C- a"
^
It 1
a — «->. -
— Ty5 cr-
SS^Vka^^
J {
3Vgg£ Gi
~s$ex*L few
*7 v pe^iuf '-e
AAt-
— ^%-
SIS
£
/<rC-
J&
-?,,-> Ti^^
t'
*) PJ A
-PT.d
y^ <^g/y\
%^M 7 1
^Pb
& l
Name
^%^y
7
^Vi?' — -
i=f^=^
**' UUto 3<rti
Company
'7X
/V- s-z
APr
kk
_^>
g±2t
7"^ /?
i£^
P "1 F
£U-
&>J£*
Mfy
M
£
ML
Jr-Uo
T)*-
-tW A
Co
CO
fi f>T Sf o
Qg fcfcg
umTep iaL>iog3
Asm.
A ?"
r^SE^Zzl^L fiV'\1\-* {jteL**^
Name v,onii>any
'War/ %fi'* { JkJ&*
\*&tXk . ' i(Jr^K^^
1>HL
d/.Vf i /»9u/U r nT . Vfuw,// A.&r.ni- Cjjfr /ict
' M IS
r^oj^
Waae
inpanv
o^?y jt yy5-
/?? A>Sf-
1/t/V.
/}^^ £ ^gj£
^fy^2>
L-PAufb ftU>\U
j&
g "fr
. ^ ^' ,
^
-L-L2.
- t :^T
=k
b£
i re
Jk
3~*T
It
doKrn^Km
IsA/f'npto
7K
!WM
m
£
/sfc*
> Jtl
£yw-A^
X£w
gjtD&s^
<^*-S^
m^M^z
3^
^=^-
;'^
7T
/tti**i-f£
9 A/* A J^itfL'!/*"-
I h>any
2fl£.
■US*'
U/M
u : a jL
d£L
frlfir
2
{fyr.A<^ £££*
*
-2.
7«-
*-&/.
tZi/£2<J / 6Zg*J
1^.. SkfXuV
* SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENT 0*^1
WAY 16 1988
APRIL 19, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEfM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Ai rports Commi ssion
April 19, 1988
CALENDAR
AGENDA
SECTION
ITEM
TITLE
A.
CALL TO ORDER
B.
ROLL CALL:
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
April 5, 1988
88-0062
SPECIAL ITEMS:
Employee Commendation -
Russell J. Mayweathers
88-0063
3-4
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
PENDING LEGISLATION:
State Legislation - AB 4288
88-0064
4-5
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Requesting the California Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) to
Place a Moratorium on New or
Pending Licenses for Ground
Transportation Carriers Proposing
to Serve San Francisco Intern' 1
Airport 88-0065
South San Francisco and Mill brae
Home Insulation Funding - FY88-89
($266,300.00) 88-0066
5-7
C0NSEN T CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Re^ect'on of All Bids and
Author ; zat : on for Re-Bid.
Contract No. 1912 - Tunne 1
'6 - Waterproofing & Finishes
- South Terminal
■0067
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
April 19, 1988
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward F 1 e i s he 11. Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 1988 were adopted by order
of the Commission President.
No. 88-0062
D. SPECIAL ITEMS:
The following item was unanimously adopted.
1 . Employee Commendation
No. 88-0063 Resolution of Commendation for Russell
J. Mayweathers, 1987 recipient of the
William R. O'Brien Perpetual Award for
Employee Excel lence.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, introduced Mr. Russell Mayweathers
to the Commission and congratulated him on being the first employee
to receive the William R. O'Brien Perpetual Award for Employee
Excellence. He sa'd that his professionalism exemplifies the nighest
standards of employee dedication and the standards which were set by
Mr. 0'3rien in his 34 years of service to the City and the Airport as
the Airport's first engineer. Mr. Mayweathers, an Airport emplc.ee
for the past 24 yea^s and a custodial supervisor for 9 years, has
consistenly aemonst; atred outstanding performance in carrying out his
duties and in the p'omotion of good w ; 1 1 between employees, tenants
Minutes Ap. H 19, 1988. Pa^je 3
and other City departments. Mr. Turpen told the Commission that Mr.
Mayweathers is a credit to the Airport and was pleased to honor him
in this fashion.
The following is a complete text of Mr. Mayweathers comments:
It is a privilege to be the very first recipient of the William
O'Brien Award for Employee Excellence. It is a double pleasure
to receive an award for doing your job, and for enjoying what
you do.
I have always felt it's my duty to give my all as an Airport
employee. My job deserves my loyalty, dedication and the extra
effort that I've been trained to do by my parents, by my tour in
the military, and as an American citizen.
When I came to be a supervisor for the Airport I made an effort
to put my personal philosophy into my methods of supervising, to
make it a point to work with my fellow supervisors, to treat my
work crews as I have wanted to be treated, and to treat the
public and other Airport employees as well as airline personnel
and tenants with respect and cooperation.
I want to thank Mrs. Joiner for nominating me and Mr. Murray for
being there to give me assistance and support when I needed it.
I also want to thank my wife, Alice, for listening and for
giving me her love and support when I would bring the job home
with me.
Thank you.
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners.
F. PENDING LEGISLATION:
The following item was unanimously adopted.
2. State Legislation
No. 86-0064 Report on AB 4288 (Farr) and
recommendation that the Commission
officially oppose said legislation.
Mr. Turpen explained to the Commission that because the North
Terminal has multiple flights to Canada it would be subject to this
legislation. He recommended opposing this piece of legislation. He
also told the Commission that the State legislature is trying to
dictate revenue streams for the Airport.
Commissioner Fleishell said that tne City has involved a lobbyist.
Mr. Turpen said that the City of San Francisco has retained Ms. Helen
Dowden as the its lobbyist and will be her sole client. He said that
the Mayor's legislative liaison between the departments and Ms.
Minutes , Ap i 1 19, 1983, Page 4
Dowden is Claude Everhart, the Mayor's Deputy for Governmental
Affairs. He said that he is not aware of any decision regarding San
Francisco's Washington advocate.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
3. Requesting the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to Place
a Moratorium on New or Pending Licenses for Ground Transpotation
Carriers Proposing to Serve San Francisco International Airport
No. 88-0065 Airport staff is recommending that the
Airports Commission pass a resolution
requesting the California Public
Utilities Commission to place a
moratorium on new and pending
applications for ground transportation
carriers desiring to provide service
to and from San Francisco
International Airport.
Mr. Turpen said that this item was before the Commission two weeks
ago and was put over at the request of a carrier. He said that
Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, indicates that there are four or
five new applications pending.
Mr. Fein told the Commission that there are a total of six applica-
tions pending before the PUC. There are four on-demand operators,
one serving Santa Clara, one for Contra Costa, and two additional
on-demand operators to San Francisco. In addition, there is one
scheduled operator to Solano County and another scheduled operator
for San Francisco.
Mr. Turpen asked Mr. Fein how many scheduled operators there would be
to San Francisco if these applications were approved.
Mr. Fein responded that there would be at least seven van operators
to the City in addition to several scheduled operators.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airport must get a handle on this. He said
that anyone applying to the PUC for a permit is getting one but the
market is not expanding at the rate as the capacity. The operates
are fighting for a share of the market in order to survive and the
Airport has the obligation to ensure that the system remains rational
and not "deregulated".
Mr. Turpen said that rather than continue to follow the PUC's
informal policy of deregulation he encouraged the Commission to
approve this item while retaining the right to waive the moratorium
on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what happens to those pending
applications if the Commission passes this resolution.
Mr. Turpen responded that that will be up to the PUC. He said that
he has been led to believe that requests from the Airports Commission
for a moratorium will be granted until our ground transportation
study has been completed.
M- ,tes, Ap i i 19, 1985. Page 5
Mr. Fein added that the fate of the six pending applications might
depend on how far they are in the process. He said that the last two
applications were sent in this week and have not yet begun the
process; the other four have been in the process for six months.
Mr. William Lazar, President of Super Shuttle, said that his company
is concerned about the language being proposed and those concerns
have been discussed by his legal counsel and Mr. Garibaldi. He said
he would like to continue to work with staff to suggest some language
changes regarding the moratorium and thought that that process might
take another two weeks. He said that his legal counsel proposed to
Mr. Garibaldi that the word "pending" be dropped and that the wording
be amended to read "new passenger stage certificates" rather than
"new and pending applications".
Mr. Turpen told Mr. Lazar that the resolution says "new".
Commissioner Fleishell said that an Airport permit authorizes an
operator to do business at the Airport.
Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that that is
the intent of the permit. It is Airport's permission to the operator
to operate on the Airport.
Commissioner Fleishell asked why the Airport was asking the PUC for a
mori tori urn when the Airport already had the authority to deny
permission to operate on the Airport.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that once an operator has a PUC certificate
it is very difficult to deny them access to operate.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if the Airport has ever tried to deny
anyone.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that he did not think so.
Mr. Fein explained that the problem is that an operator goes through
a hearing period with the PUC that may last up to nine months and may
cost anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000, depending on how much comment
there is. At that point it would be unfair to deny an operator a
permit after he has spent all of that time and money. He said that
this moratorium will give operators that warning.
Commissioner Fleishell said that if the word "pending" has been
removed then there should be no further objection.
Mr. Lazar said that the resolution states "new licenses" and he
suggested replacing that language with "new passenger stage
certificates" .
Ms. Gittens did not understand the difference.
Mr. Lazar said that the PUC could interpret it differently. He
explained that a new passenger stage certificate would be given to a
new operator applying for permission to operate to the Airport,
whereas current operators wanting to expand their operations may come
under the classification of licenses.
Mr. Turpen said that tie e>pandi"g service would not include the
Ai rport .
Mr. Lazar responded that it could be other areas that would include
service to the Airport, such as the Peninsula.
Minutes, Ap i 1 19, 1988, Page 6
Mr. Garibaldi said that "certificate" would be more appropriate
language.
Mr. Ken Brooks, Deputy City Manager for the City of San Mateo, said
that the San Mateo and the Peninsula are interested in transportation
to and from the Airport for Peninsula residents. He said that his
office sent a letter to Mayor Agnos requesting that Peninsula cab
services be included on the Airport. He said that if this resolution
precludes or excludes Peninsula Cab services he would be interested.
Mr. Turpen said that cab service is not part of this issue.
Commissioner Fleishell said that this only respondes to half of the
problem. The concern is the number of vehicles on the Airport. In
addition to the moratorium, we should be putting a cap on the number
of vehicles existing permittees can bring on the Airport. Otherwise,
new entrants will be stopped but a current operator could add 100%
more vehicles.
Mr. Turpen said that staff will discuss this with Mr. Harvey, whose
report is forthcoming. He said he felt the idea was a good one and
while there are a number of ways to achieve it the Airport has been
in a holding pattern while it waits for Mr. Harvey's report. It was
the Commission's view that until the report was published staff
should not take any action regarding ground transportation. He said
that there are a number of items pending, i.e. shuttle bus, bidding a
van service, etc.
South San Francisco and Mill brae Home Insulation Funding - FY88-89 -
$266,300.00
No. 88-0066 Resolution authorizing the expenditure
of funds by the Director for home
insulation of approximately 90
residences in Mill brae and South San
Francisco. Expenditure of approxi-
mately $266,300.00 is limited to the
fol lowing:
a. 20% of the building insulation
costs for each unit;
b. Subject to the granting of a
Noise Easement to the City and
County of San Francisco for each
unit insulated
H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
5. Rejection of All Bids and Authorization for Re-bid: Contract 1912
Tunnel "B" Waterproofing | Finishes, South Terminal
No. 88-0067 Human Rights Commission has declared
all bids to be non-responsive to MBE
program requirements.
M'nutes, Ap- il 19, '988, Page 7
Declaration of Emergency:
Airport Contract No. 2052
Emergency Electrical Cable Replacement Cable 1 2AM- 1
Nater Quality Control Plant Section
No. 88-0068
Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in
declaring an emergency in electrical
cable failure at North Field area
serving Water Quality Control Plant,
S.F. City College, and Chevron; and
directing the Director of Airports to
effect the necessary repairs.
I. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no new business
J. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:21 AM to go into closed session.
n Caramatti
mission Secretary
Minutes, Ap: 11 19, 1988, Page 8
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS Dc.7 7
J UN 7 1933
SAN FRANCISCO
MINUTES
MAY 3, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEIM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
May 3, 1988
CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION
SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE
A. CALL TO ORDER:
B. ROLL CALL:
C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
April 19, 1988 88-0070
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
1. $108,000 Supplemental Appropria-
tion for the Free Luggage Cart
Program in Customs 88-0071 4-5
2. Selection of a Feasibility
Consultant 88-0072 5-6
3. Selection of Bond Counsel 88-0073 5-6
4. Award of Contract No. 15596:
Taxiway 'A' at Boarding Area
'B' - Repair and Overlay 6
5. Bid Call : Contract No. 2046:
Runway 28R & 28L - Pavement
Grooving and Repair 6
6. Resolution Acknowledging the
Merger of Canadian Pacific Air
Li nes , Ltd. into Canadian
Airlines International, Ltd. 88-0074 6
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
7. Approval of Claims Settlements 88-0075 6
8. Travel /Training for Airport
Representatives 88-0076 6
NEW BUSINESS:
Ground Transportation Study 7
Master Plan 7
CORRESPONDENCE: 7
ADJOURNEMNT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION:
Minutes, May 3. 1983, Page 2
Mi nutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
May 3, 1988
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:06 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present
Morris Bernstein, President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Absent:
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Don Richards Stephens
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 19,
of the Commission President.
No. 88-0070
were adopted by order
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0069 authorizing and approving
modification no. 5 to agreement with
Morrison & Foerster at the closed
session of April 19, 1988.
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners
Minutes , Ma y 3. 1988, Page 3
F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Item no. 1 was unanimously adopted as amended.
1 . $108,000 Supplemental Appropriation for the Free Luggage Cart Program
in Customs
No. 88-0071 Resolution authorizing a $108,000
supplemental appropriation to fund the
free luggage cart program in Customs
through the end of the current fiscal
year.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that use of
free luggage carts in Customs is up over projections, necessitating
this request for a supplemental appropriation.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she had a problem with this in the
face of the City's budget crisis. She asked how long it would take
to go from a free cart system to a pay cart system.
Mr. Turpen responded that since the dispensers are in place, the
changeover could be made within a week.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about the status of the State law.
Mr. Peter Nardoza, Assistant Deputy Director, Business and Finance,
responded that the bill is dead.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Mayor's Office should be alerted to
the implications of a free cart system in view of the budget crisis.
He said that the Commission reversed its original decision not to
provide free carts in customs at the request of certain parties.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the Commission reversed its
decision at the request of the Mayor and no one else.
Commissioner Goosby said that in view of the budget crunch he would
be in favor of raising this issue again if staff first contacts the
Mayor's representative.
Mr. Turpen said that staff has submitted the subject of free luggage
carts to the Mayor via two avenues. The first was contained in a
response to the Mayor's request for revenue proposals. The other was
in response to a specific request from the Mayor's Office which came
as a result of a letter they had received from Smarte Carte in which
a return to a pay cart system was suggested. He said that staff
provided the necessary information to the Mayor's Office and a
response from that office is expected shortly.
Mr. Turpen asked that the Commission approve this item conditionally
so that staff can proceed with the paperwork. In the event the free
cart program remains in effect, failure to proceed with the paperwork
at this time would place the Airport in a time crunch.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that although she was not happy with
this, she would vote for conditional approval for staff to proceed
with the paperwork only and t^en return to the Commission in two
weeks.
Commissioner Goosby agreed with Comm'ssioner Tsougarakis.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she wanted it clearly understood
that she would not have voted for free carts on the basis of anyone
else's request but the Mayor's.
Minutes. Ma., 3, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Turpen said that he would take this matter up with the Mayor's
representati /e after the meeting. The matter will reappear on
cal endar i n two weeks .
Items 2 and 3 were called together. Item no. 2 was unanimously adopted as
amended.
2. Selection of a Feasibility Consultant
No. 88-0072 Resolution authorizing Airport staff
to request proposals from firms to
serve as feasibility consultant for
work related to Airport bond issues.
Selection of Bond Counsel
No. 88-0073 Resolution authorizing Airport staff
to request proposals from firms to
service as Airport Bond Counsel.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Airport's bond counsel is
Orrick Herrington, and the feasibility consultant is John Brown. He
said that the City Attorney has advised him that the Airport is
obligated to request proposals for selection of a bond counsel but
not a feasibility consultant. Since Salomon Brothers is no longer in
the financial end of the business the Airport must seek a new
financial consultant.
Mr. Turpen said that since the Airport is obligated to request RFP's
for a bond counsel he recommended that the Commission approve agenda
item no. 3, Selection of Bond Counsel. He also asked the Commission
to continue John Brown's contract rather than send out a request for
proposals. He explained that when this particular item was prepared
it had not yet been determined whether or not RFP's must be
requested. He told the Commission that he would like at least one
member of that team to continue.
Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Brown has been the Airport's feasibility
consultant for many years and it would be in the best interest of
both the Airport and the Commission to retain him. He said that Mr.
Brown has done an excellent job and retaining him would provide some
continuity to the team. He added that very few companies do this
type of work.
Commissioner Goosby asked about the size of the firm.
Mr. Turpen responded that the firm consists of three people.
Commissioner TsougaraMs said she was willing to go along with Mr.
Turpen's recommendations.
Commissioner Goosby asked what the Human Rights Commission would do
about affirmative action.
Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that RFP's are not being requested
for the feasibility consultant.
Mr. Turpen explained that when this first came up he was concerned
about losing all three and asked which of them could be retained. He
said that he asked staff to prepare these items in anticipation of
Minutes, vay 3, 1988. Page 5
the possibility that none of the current contracts could be extended
He said that since that time the Airports General Counsel has
indicated that the Commission could extend Mr. Brown's contract but
RFP's must be requested for a bond counsel.
Item nos . 4 and 5 were put over.
4. Award of Contract No. 1559B
Taxi way 'A' at Boarding Area 'B' - Repair and Overlay
5. Bid Call : Contract No. 2046
Runway 28R & 28L - pavement Grooving and Repair
Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for contract No. 2046 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
Item No. 6 was unanimously adopted.
6. Resolution Acknowledging the Merger of Canadian Pacific Air Lines,
Ltd. into Canadian Airlines International, Ltd.
No. 88-0074 Resolution acknowledges the acquisi-
tion of Canadian Pacific Air Lines,
Ltd. by Pacific Western Airlines, Ltd
by act of law to form Canadian
Air'ines International Ltd. with
assignment of rights and interests
from Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Ltd.
G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
7. Approval of Claims Settlement
No. 88-0075 Resolution approving the settlement of
claims not exceeding $5,000.00 for the
period October, 1987 to March, 1988.
Total Claims: $3,563.65
Travel /Trai ni nq for Airport Representatives
No. 88-0076
Minutes, Ma.v 3, 1988, Page 6
H. NEW BUSINESS:
Commissioner Goosby asked that the Commission be briefed on the ground
transportation report at the ne*t meeting. He felt the Commission will
need more than one session on that issue.
Commissioner Goosby also asked for a briefing on the status of the Master
Plan and felt it might be helpful to the Commission to meet with the cargo
carriers in order to get their input.
Commissioner Goosby said he was not looking for a final report on the
transportation study, just a preliminary report on the problems and issues.
I. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission
K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:18 AM.
m uaramatti
nmission Secretary
Minutes, May 3, 1988, Page 7
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENTS DEPT
SAN FRANCISCO
MAY 17, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EOWARO FLEISHELL
Vice-President
OR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEfM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
May 17, 1988
CALENDAR
AGENDA
SECTION
ITEM
TITLE
A.
CALL TO ORDER
B.
ROLL CALL:
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
May 3, 1988
88-0077
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
Status of Ground Transporta-
tion Consultant's Report
Status of Master Plan
Budget Update
3-5
5
5-6
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Phone System
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
4. Resolution Regarding Luggage
Carts in Customs
5. Award of Lease: Entertainment
Center /Video Game Room
6. Award of Contract No. 1559B:
Taxiway 'A' at Boarding Area 'B'
- Repair and Overlay
7. U.S. Postal Service's Plot 10B -
Lease Renewal Option
8. Authorization to Accept Bids
for the Hair Salon Lease
-
6-7
88-0078
7
88-0079
7-8
88-0080
8
88-0081
8
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTNINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
9. Award of Contract No. 1912:
Tunnel 'B' Waterproofing &
Finishes - Echo-West, Inc. -
Amount: $139,491 88-0082
10. Type II Modification to
Contract 1416C - Delta Airlines
Facilities, South Terminal and
Boarding Area 'C - No Cost to
City 88-0083
11 . Bid Call: Contract No. 2046:
Runway 28R & 28L - Pavement
Grooving and Repair 88-0084
12. Design Review Approval -
Insurance/Business Service
Center 88-0085
H. NEW BUSINESS:
I. CORRESPONDENCE:
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION:
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
May 17, 1988
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Absent: Don Richards Stephens
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 3, 1988 were adopted by order of
the Commission President.
No. 88-0077
D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
1 . Status of Ground Transportation Consultant's Report
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, introduced Mr. Greig Harvey, the
Airport's consultant on ground transportation, and asked him to brief
the Commission on the status of his ground transportation report.
Mr. Harvey told the Commission that they should have received his
four page executive summary which covers the main points of his
ground transportation report. He said that that document would be in
their hands by May 31 .
Mr. Harvey said he would be available to talk to individual
Commissioners or the Commission as a group about specific questions.
He said that although he tried to sort out the most important issues,
there were literally hundreds of questions raised in interviews and
he was only able to deal with a relatively small number of them.
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 3
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she would prefer to defer
discussion on this issue until such time when the Commission receives
the final report. Once the Commission receives that report they will
accept recommendations over the next two or three months. Staff can
then call meetings with interested parties and then present their
findings to the Commission for a public hearing and policy decisions.
Mr. Turpen asked the Commission if there would be any advantage to
scheduling informational briefings after May 31.
Commissioner Goosby thought such meetings would be helpful.
Mr. Turpen said that a series of meetings could be set up during the
first two weeks in June and later calendared for Commission
di scussion.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the final report addressed West of
Bayshore impact.
Mr. Harvey responded that although he did speak with staff about the
West of Bayshore and how it might fit into the overall flow of ground
access activity at the Airport, another consultant was handling the
master plan so he tried to focus on relatively short term issues. He
said that he could address that issue during individual conversations
with the Commission.
Mr. Turpen added that there was a recent article on the West of
Bayshore property which characterized staff as being against an
on-Airport mass transit connection. He explained that although people
talk about BART specifically, he is referring to a generic on-Airport
connection. He said that the Commission's official position, adopted
in 1982, is that some mass transit rail option to the Airport is
favored. He added that the Commission reserved any comment as to a
specific on-Airport location pending the outcome of the master plan
and additional studies into the area.
Commissioner Goosby commented that the Commission planned an Airport
access for BART via the garage 20 years ago.
Mr. Harvey said that it would be to the Airport's advantage to have
BART come in close to the West of Bayshore facility but that it
should not be a major transfer facility for passengers commuting from
San Mateo to the City.
Mr. Turpen said that there is a view that the West of Bayshore is the
best alternative for an interface between BART or some other rail
system. There is an alternate view that the Airport terminal complex
itself would be an excellent terminus. He said that while those
views persist there has been no resolution nor has staff gotten into
any detailed studies, perferring to wait until an alternative has
been selected.
Mr. Turpen said that individual meetings with the Commission will be
scheduled.
Commissioner Goosby suggested that a press conference be held when
Mr. Harvey's final report is released.
Mr. Turpen responded that he would prefer to schedule a press
conference after meeting with the Commission.
Commissioner Fleishell said that there are certain areas that he had
hoped Mr. Harvey would cover, i.e. San Mateo taxi entry into the
Airport and rental car trips. He remembered that there had been a
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 4
suggestion to move the rental cars into the garage. Commissioner
Fleishell also suggested that staff investigate reports that existing
rules are not being enforced.
Mr. Harvey responded that the long version of the report deals with
the San Mateo taxis. He said that he has worked with San Mateo, the
City and the Airport to try to determine the possibilities.
Commissioner Fleishell suggested that Mr. Harvey address the cab
companies criticisms of the present dispatch system and its location.
2. Status of Master Plan
Mr. Turpen said that at its last meeting the Commission asked for a
brief update on the master plan.
Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction,
said that since the last status report staff has been working with
the Department of Fish and Game on the garter snake issue on the West
of Bayshore. A procedure has finally been agreed upon so that a
study can proceed.
Mr. Yuen said that Working Paper 'B' will be presented to the
Commission at the first meeting in June and will address the east
side of the freeway but not the West of Bayshore property. He said
that staff will continue to work on that issue and he hoped that
after the master plan is adopted it will be updated to include the
West of Bayshore property.
Mr. Yuen said that Fish and Game was anxious to develop that plan as
kids were riding their bikes on that property and killing the
environment for the snakes.
Commissioner Goosby asked which phase would address the cargo areas.
Mr. Yuen responded that Working Paper 'B' will address that issue.
Budget Update
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, told the
Commission that although staff was not quite as far along as she had
hoped they would be, the Mayor's Office has given a preliminary
decision that they will require the Airport to expand concession
revenue by approximately $7-mi 1 1 ion , creating an additional
$1 -mi 1 1 i on in revenue for the City. She said that staff will present
a series of proposals at the next meeting which will include an
increase in parking and ground transportation fees. She added that
at this point the Mayor's Office does not want the free cart program
in customs discontinued.
Commissioner Goosby asked how much money would be transferred to the
City.
Ms. Gittens responded that $10. 5-mi 1 1 ion would be sent.
Commissioner Goosby commented that in spite of the amount of money
being transferred into the General Fund the Airport is projecting a
reduction in landing fees and rental rates for next year. He said
that no one ever recognizes the Commission or staff for its efforts
and felt that the airlines should write a letter of commendation to
the Airport.
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 5
Ms. Gittens said that staff will be meeting with the airlines on
Thursday on the rates and charges and she will forward his request to
them.
Mr. Turpen said that when the agreement was worked out in 1981 the
airlines were contributing about 520 on the dollar to the Airport's
operation; they are now contributing 330 on the dollar.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that progressive occupancy of Boarding
Area 'C will begin at midnight on June 7. There will be a
dedication ceremony on June 16 which will not only earmark the
opening of Boarding Area 'C but the conclusion of the terminal
modernization program, a 25 year, $600-mi 1 1 i on venture.
Mr. Turpen commented that staff and members of the Commission have
been working with Host International on the proposal to provide
minority opportunities and price controls in concessions. He said
that in working with the Mayor's Office, the Commission and staff, a
request was made of Host to look at excel lerating the phase-in
schedule from the original 1994 date. He said that Host has advised
him that he will receive a revised phase-in schedule any day and he
will forward that schedule to the Commission. He said that the next
step would be to discuss that schedule with Host.
Commissioner Bernstein asked when Host would have its proposal ready.
Mr. Turpen responded that it should be ready this week and the
Commission should receive it by Thursday.
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Fl e i she 1 1 mentioned the fire in Chicago last week that
knocked out the switching mechanism for the phone systems and shut down
O'Hare Airport as they had no back-up system. He asked Mr. Turpen to talk
with the FAA to see if the same situation exists at SFO.
Mr. Turpen explained that the Airport has a redundant system which ties
into the tower. This system is designed to provide a four-digit internal
system, totally independent and physically separated from the primary
system, in the event the primary system goes out. He said that he would
check the extent of its capabilities.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
No action was taken on item no. 4.
4. Resolution Regarding Luggage Carts in Customs
Resolution reflecting the Mayor's
views on luggage carts in Customs.
Commissioner Goosby said that if the Mayor decides to continue the
program the proper vote should be against it.
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 6
Mr. Turpen said that no action would be necessary on this item.
Commissioner Fleishell asked when the existing contract expires.
Mr. Turpen responded that the contract expires in 1990.
Commissioner Fleishell said that when the Commission first began
discussing installing a free cart operation a year ago staff was to
immediately begin hunting for alternative suppliers. He asked about
the status of that search.
Mr. Turpen responded that the supplier is not the problem, rather it
is joining the supplier to an operator to run the program. He said
that that was the problem staff had the last time around.
Item no. 5 was unanimously adopted.
5. Award of Lease: Entertainment Center/Video Game Room
No. 88-0078 Resolution awarding the Lease of
Entertainment Center/Video Game Room
in the North Termina Building to
S.H.A., Inc.
Item no. 6 was unanimously adopted as amended.
6. Award of Contract No. 1559B :
Taxiway 'A' at Boarding Area 'B', Repair and Overlay
No. 88-0079
Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities Operations and
Maintenance, recommended award to 0'Grady Paving. He said that Bay
Cities Paving protested the qualifications of 0'Grady Paving, the low
bidder, to HRC. The HRC staff ruled against Bay Cities, saying that
their supplier was, in fact, not a supplier and that they therefore
did not meet the MBE goals. Bay Cities appealed the decision to HRC
yesterday and HRC upheld the staff recommendation.
Mr. Turpen recommended the award go to 0'Grady Paving.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if there was an appellate period
following the decision by the HRC.
Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that that is
what occurred yesterday. HRC staff made the initial determination
which was appealed to the HRC Director. The HRC Director upheld the
staff recommendation. Beyond that avenue is the court.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if the award of this contract should be
delayed in the event Bay Cities goes to court.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that the contract must be processed in the
interim as there is a time problem. If a suit is filed, the process
can be stopped.
Mr. Bouey added that this question has arisen about three times and
in each case the contract was awarded based on the Airport's
procedures. If a lawsuit is filed the Airport would make its
argument and then abide by the decision. He argued that not to
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 7
proceed on the basis that a lawsauit may or may not be filed may
cause the Airport to lose its window, which is fairly short in this
type of construction.
U.S Postal Service's Plot 10B Lease Renewal Option
No. 88-0080 Resolution approving the renewal
option of Lease No. PUC 24392 for the
U.S. Postal Service's Plot 10B, at an
annual land rate of $18,500 per acre,
per year.
Authorization to Accept Bids for the Hair Salon Lease
No. 88-0081 Resolution approving lease specifica-
tions and authorizing Director to
accept bids for the Hair Salon Lease.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Mike Arandareff if he wished to address
the Commission.
Mr. Arendareff introduced himself and told the Commission that he is a
member of the San Francisco Airport Committee which represents the
residents of San Francisco. He said that his Committee feels that their
interests have not been represented in terms of the overflight noise
problem. The Committee would like to be kept up to date on the Airport's
activities, in particular how the overflight noise problem relates to the
master plan.
Commissioner Goosby told Mr. Arendareff that his Committee could be placed
on the mai 1 ing list.
G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
9. Award of Contract No. 1912 :
Tunnel 'B' Waterproofing & Finishes
Echo-West, Inc. - Amount: $139,491
No. 88-0082 Commission rejected all bids on April
19th due to failure of bidders to meet
Human Rights Commission requirements.
Contract was re-bid on May 4, 1988.
Human Rights Commission has approved
award of contract to Echo-West.
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 8
10. Type II Modification to Contract 1416C :
Delta Airlines Facilities, South Terminal and Boarding Area 'C
- No Cost to City
No. 88-0083
Changes requested by Delta for its
baggage system, Agent's Room, and
operations ramp. Total cost of
$67,638.19 will be paid by Delta.
11 . Bid Call : Contract No. 2046 :
Runway 28R & 28L, Pavement Grooving and Repair
No. 88-0084
Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 2046 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
12. Design Review Approval - Insurance/Business Service Center
No. 88-0085
Resolution approving the schematic
design of the Insurance/Business
Service Center.
H. NEW BUSINESS:
No new business was presented to the Commission,
* * *
I. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission
* * *
K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:28 AM to go into closed session.
lean Caramatti
Commission Secretary
Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 9
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
JUL 3 7 1983
SAN f-KANCitsCO
PUBLIC UBRAQV
JUNE 7, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
Presldtnt
J. EOWARO FLEISHELL
VlctPrtsldtnt
OR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEIM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
June 7, 1988
CALENDAR
SECTION
B.
C.
D.
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
Revenue Proposals
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
BART
Overf 1 ights
Travel /Training: Ron Wilson
88-0098
4-5
5
5
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Resolution Approving a Partial
Sublease of the Boarding Area
'E' Retail Concession Lease
88-0087
Resolution Approving the Assign-
ment of the International
Terminal Poster Shop Sublease 88-0088
Resolution Approving Pre-Bid
Conference for In-Bond
Concession Agreement
88-0089
G.
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Resolution of Appreciation -
Jerome A. Cope Ian
88-0090
Resolution Approving Assignment
Agreement's - Alaska Airlines and
Delta Air Lines 88-0091
Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid
Conference for South Terminal
Cigarette Vending Lease 88-0092
Resolution Settling Construction
Claims
9. Bid Call: Contract No. 2043:
Removal and Disposal of Material
Adjacent to Taxiway 'L' 88-0093 8
10. Bid Call : Contract No. 1999:
Terminal Approach Roadway - Pave-
ment and Repairs 88-0094 8
11. $85,000 Contract with the
Corporation of Fine Arts Museums,
San Francisco 88-0095 8
12. Contract for Holiday Decor, San
Francisco International Airport 88-0096 8
13. Declaration of Emergency:
Contract No. 2056 - Emergency
Transformer Repair 88-0097 8
H. PUBLIC HEARING:
14. Fiscal Year 1988-89 Rates and
Charges
I. NEW BUSINESS:
Mobile Catering Truck Operators 9-11
J. CORRESPONDENCE: 11
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION:
Minutes. June 7, 1988. Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
June 7, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti ,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0086 at the closed session of May
17, 1988.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
1 . Revenue Proposals
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director reminded the Commission that staff
has been looking towards revenue generation in the non-airline area.
As a result, a series of proposals have been put together for review
both by the Commission and the Mayor's Office. Responses to those
proposals have been received from the Mayor's Office and they have
agreed to selected proposals being implemented. Those proposals will
be brought to the Commission.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the Mayor wished to have a second
opportunity to look at specific proposals once they have been made.
Mr. Turpen responded that some of these proposals will involve going
through the City's approval process which includes the Mayor's Office
Minutes, June 7, 1988. Page 3
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Goosby asked if the Airport has been asked for its input on
the location of the BART terminal, i.e. why the center of the garage is
not being used, running the tracks on the West of Bayshore, and the impact
on congestion versus the cost. He said that the master plan envisioned
the garage as a viable alternative but the idea has been abandoned.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Airport received a letter from an
architect/planner which raised some serious questions and suggested that
the Commission has been remiss in not being more knowledgeable about the
proposal and in not offering input. He said that Chicago, New York,
Boston and London have rapid transit systems to their airports and asked
how successful they were in the eyes of the public and those airports.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Commission has not even discussed these
questions and did not feel that a momentous decision such as this should
be made without comment from the Commission.
Mr. Turpen responded that to his knowledge the Airport has received no
official request for input into the process. He said that there have been
informal conversations and questions as to the Commission's position. He
said that the Commission's prior position was for a mass transit/BART
alternative to the Airport, reserving the right to comment on the specific
physical interface until such time as the proposal became more concrete.
He reminded the Commission that this position was adopted in 1982 and
until this recent activity it was a very sound endorsement.
Commissioner Goosby asked if a decision on the location of the station was
close to being made.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport owns the West of Bayshore property
as well as the terminals and it would be within the purview of the
Airports Commission to make those decisions.
Commissioner Goosby felt that the BART board would benefit from the
Commission's input.
Mr. Turpen said that there are two views as to locations. One is to have
BART come into the Airport, the other is to have BART access the West of
Bayshore where it could tie into some other alternative mode of transpor-
tation. He said that both views have their merits and demerits. Staff
could examine the alternatives for operational and physical impact if the
Commission wished.
Commissioner Goosby asked if any subterranian preparations have been made,
other than the hole in the garage.
Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Building and Construction,
responded that there is a right of way for a future BART trace.
Commissioner Fleishell said that when he met with Mr. Yuen last week on
the master plan he raised the same issue. He felt that the Airport should
contact BART, rather than wait for BART to contact the Airport.
Commissioner Fleishell said that it might not be feasible to put this
system underground because of the land fill. He thought that it would be
very costly, as would the connprtor from the West of Bayshore to the
terminal .
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she too met with Mr. Yuen last week and
it seemed to her that the master plan itself is a statement from the
Commission. She said that she also felt that the core of the garage needs
to be addressed in the master plan.
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Turpen felt it would be appropriate to return at the next meeting and
bring the Commission up to speed as well as come to agreement on some of
the physical/operational considerations and transmit them to the BART
board.
Commissioner Goosby suggested that the BART board be queried as to whether
or not they are interested in the Commission's positions on the various
proposals.
Mr. Turpen said that staff will prepare a summary of the issues and then
move forward to the appropriate agency.
Commissioner Goosby said that he attended a meeting last evening at the
invitation of the San Francisco Organizing Project, a group of church/
community organizations in the City with broad connections in the South
San Francisco/southern part of the City. He said that 35-40 people
attended the meeting to discuss the issue of overflights and he promised
the group that he would bring their concerns to staff's attention. He
asked if Ron Wilson could schedule a meeting with this group and invite
the Airport's noise specialists and representatives of the FAA. He added
that many of the attendees were unaware of how often the Airport is sued
over noise.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Supervisor's Committee is beginning to
look into this issue as well as the Mayor and felt that it would benefit
the Airport to develop a liaison with the Mayor's Office. He said that if
Mr. Ho is that liaison it should be determined whether or not background
should be presented and a procedure developed through which the question
of noise can be addressed with both San Francisco and San Mateo residents.
He said that the procedure might determine whether or not flight paths
could be impacted through the FAA. He said that there might be a
constitutional question involved that would prevent interference but he
felt that there might be some relief for local communities at the federal
level. He felt that all avenues should be explored, including the
legislative process.
Commissioner Goosby said that the group asked how long the five new
monitors mentioned in the newspaper would be in place, whether any of
those monitors would be positioned in the southern part of the City,
especially in the McLaren Park/Woodrow Wilson High School area, and, who
would monitor them. He said that the group had other questions but he
would discuss them with staff after the meeting.
Commissioner Goosby felt that the Mayor would be pleased with such an
approach through his office and that the Board of Supervisor's Committee
will see that the Airport wants to work cooperatively with them as well.
Commissioner Goosby felt that there would also be opponents to the master
plan and the bond issues.
Commissioner Goosby thought it might be a good idea for Mr. Ho to attend
the meeting with the community.
Commissioner Bernstein introduced a ravel /training request for Ron
Wilson, Director of Community Affairs, to attend the Citizens Conference
on Airport/Aircraft Noise in Seattle, Washington - June 10-11, 1988.
The resolution was unanimously adopted.
No. 88-0098
Minutes, June 7, 1988. Page 5
F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
3. Resolution Approving a Partial Sublease of the Boarding Area 'E'
Retail Concession Lease
No. 88-0087
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this item approves a sublease of
space from Duty Free Shoppers, the successful concessionaire in
Boarding Area 'E', to Kass Management Services, an HRC certified
minority business. He said that he was pleased that the sublease
involves this minority business, particularly in light of the
difficulties the Commission experienced in trying to promote its
standard principal concession concept. He commended all those
involved in this effort.
Resolution Approving the Assignment of the International Terminal
Poster Shop Sublease
No. 88-0088 Resolution approving the assignment of
the International Terminal, the Poster
Shop sublease from Concourse Gallery,
Inc. to Aerogifts Center, a partner-
ship.
4. Resolution Approving Pre-Bid Conference for In-Bond Concession
Agreement
No. 88-0089 Resolution authorizing the Director to
hold a pre-bid conference for the
pre-bid of the In-Bond Concession.
Mr. Turpen explained that Duty Free's agreement terminates in
approximately one year. He felt that it would be prudent to hold a
pre-bid conference at this time to reach out to potential bidders and
advise them of this opportunity well in advance of the effective date
and sol icit their views.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if there had been a problem between
Customs and Duty Free's off-Airport facility. He thought that Duty
Free was trying to get the Federal law amended.
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, responded
that that effort is still in the works. She said that there is no
requirement for a bonded warehouse downtown but that this facility
will be required under this agreement so that orders can be taken.
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Items 5 through 7 and 9 through 13 were unanimously adopted. Item No.
was removed from the calendar.
Minutes. June 7, 1988, Page 6
5. Resolution of Appreciation - Jerome A. Copelan
No. 88-0090
Commissioner Goosby asked where Mr. Copelan would be assigned.
Ms. Gittens responded that Mr. Copelan will be head property manager
of the Americas for Qantas. Their office is located in downtown San
Francisco and his sites will be Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco,
Los Angeles, Honolulu, Chicago and New York. If Qantas goes back
into Mexico or South America he will be responsible for those areas
as wel 1 .
Commissioner Goosby asked what Mr. Copelan 1 s title was and if he
would be replaced.
Ms. Gittens responded that his title was Head Property Manager and
she said that he would be replaced.
Commissioner Goosby asked if that was a Civil Service position.
Ms. Gittens responded that it is currently a Civil Service position
however there is a possibility that a request will be made to change
it to an exampt position. She said that if it remains a permanent
Civil Service position she would not try to fill it temporarily, but
would wait until an exam could be held.
Commissioner Goosby asked when she would know whether or not it would
remain permanent.
Ms. Gittens responded that it will be up to the Commission to decide
when it is presented to them in two weeks.
Mr. Turpen explained that the City Charter gives the Commission the
authority to create an exempt position. If the exempt position is
created, the Commission must ratify any appointment or discharge from
that position. He said that there are presently a handfull of Civil
Service exempt positions at the Airport.
Commissioner Goosby asked how many people were on Mr. Copelan's staff.
Ms. Gittens responded that there are a total of five employees in the
department; Mr. Copelan, another individual at the next level who is
in charge of the retail concessions, and three others who are on a
par with one another.
6. Resolution Approving Assignment Agreement's - Alaska Airlines and
Del ta Air Lines
No. 88-0091 Resolution approving the mutual
assignment of space on Boarding Area
'B' of the South Terminal Building
between Alaska Airlines and Delta Air
Lines.
Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference for South Terminal
Cigarette Vending Lease
No. 88-0092
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 7
8. Resolution Settling Construction Claims
Resolutiors settling construction
claims between Pan American World
Airways and the Airport.
Bid Call : Contract No. 2043
Removal and Disposal of Material Adjacent to Taxiway 'L'
No. 88-0093 Proposed resolution approving the
scope, budget, and call for bids for
Airport Contract No. 2043.
10. Bid Call : Contract No. 1999
Terminal Approach Roadway
Pavement Widening and Repairs
No. 88-0094 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Airport Contract No.
1999 and authorizing the Director of
Airports to call for bids when ready.
1 1 . $85,000 Contract with the Corporation of Fine Arts Museums, San
Francisco
No. 88-0095
Contract for $85,000 with the Corpora-
tion of Fine Arts Museums, San
Francisco (COFAM) for the purpose of
providing and implementing temporary
exhibitions at San Francisco Interna-
tional Airport for the fiscal year
1988/89.
12. Contract for Holiday Decor, San Francisco International Airport
No. 88-0096 Contract for holiday decor for holiday
season, December 1988.
1 3 . Declaration of Emergency :
Contract No. 2056
Emergency Transformer Repair
No. 88-0097 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in
declaring an emergency because of an
electrical transformer failure at West
end of the parking garage and
directing the Director of Airports to
effect the >cessary repairs.
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 8
H. PUBLIC HEARING:
The public hearing was called to order at 9:32 AM and adjourned at 9:33
AM, there being no requests from tha public to speak.
14. Fiscal Year 1988-89 Rates and Charges
Hearing concerning the establishment
of ( 1 ) terminal rental rates and (2)
commercial and general aviation
landing fee rates for Fiscal Year
1988/89 and beyond.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airline Affairs Committee has reviewed the
rates and charges and staff will return to the Commission for
approval at the next meeting.
I. NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. John Stevens, Kitchen on Wheels, asked the Commission why the mobile
catering truck operators were losing their permits and their business. He
said that four operators have been working on permits at Cargo 7 for six
or seven years and that a couple of months ago they received letters
informing them that their permits were being cancelled and would have to
leave the area.
Mr. Stevens said that they have had two unsuccessful meetings with the
Airport. At the first meeting they were asked to approach the airlines
for space. The operators were asked the results of their efforts with the
airlines at the second meeting. He complained that they lost two half
days with these meetings.
Mr. Stevens said that after the second meeting they visited their new
location to determine how many companies would be working there. He said
that United, the largest employer, does not want them. Delta has its own
truck but the operators were told that there is an area with 15 employees
and they would be allowed on the property for a few minutes at a time.
Mr. Stevens said that American has 80 to 100 employees and United has
about 40 employees in their cargo areas where they would be allowed to
operate. Hertz has had a truck for 17 years and does not want another.
Budget only has 15 employees. He said that the operators feel that half
of the 200 - 300 employees located in this area will bring a sandwich from
home, reducing the market to abcut 150 employees.
Mr. Stevens said that there are about six illegal trucks working at the
Airport and nothing has been done to remove them from the area. He
complained that these illegal operators pay no rent and no insurance.
Mr. Stevens said that the Airport is sending staff to the sites for about
an hour to watch the operation and take photographs. He explained that if
a truck stops it does not necessarily mean that the driver is there is buy
food. The driver could be making a delivery or asking directions.
Mr. Stevens said that the Airport is claiming that the trucks are blocking
the roadway and creating a hazard. He said that ho works at Butler
Aviation and there is no traffic in that area. He arks his truck closest
to the street... 35 feet from one side of the street and 45 feet from the
other side. Mr. Stevens said that the operators have talked with the
Airport Police and they have been told that they are not blocking traffic.
Mr. Stevens told the Commission that they have tried to work with the
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 9
Airport staff. There are four families working in that area and they are
being put out of business. He claimed that the Airport is going to give
that area to the highest bidder after they have spent years developing
their businesses. He said that any money the Airport receives comes from
the good will he has developed. He said that the good will that he has
developed over the past eight years is his and belongs to no one else.
Mr. Stevens told the Commission that across from the area in which he
works is an empty strip of land measuring about 20 feet wide by 650 feet
long. In the past the catering truck operators have asked if they could
use that area so they would be closer to the tenants, but were refused
permission. He said that he worked at Cargo 7, which is leased property,
for six years and about a year ago was asked to leave. He was told by
Jerry Copelan of the Airport that the tenant did not want them on their
property.
Mr. Stevens said that if there is a problem with their current location
they would like to know what it is. He said that he has been at the
Airport for 11 years and his truck cost him $100,000. He pays $1,000 in
rent, utilities, $2,000 a month in insurance, $100 to the Airport and
$1 -mi 1 1 i on in insurance. He said that it costs him $2,500 a month to
operate so he is not working free.
Mr. James Quiett told the Commission that he is a former Commissioner in
Marin County and is representing the Jun Catering Truck Company. He asked
the Commission if they have considered the damage this action will cause
the catering truck companies. He requested that the Commission defer its
decision so as to allow the operators more time to find additional
accounts. He said that when the operators were contacted by the Airport
they became frightened about their liability. He asked the Commission
what it would mean to their own businesses to be cut off from one quarter
or one third of their clients. He said that business would decline and
eventually they would have to close their doors.
Mr. Quiett said that 30 percent of San Francisco business must go to
minorities and the Commission should work just as hard to keep them in
business as they do to put them out of business. He was not suggesting
that the Commission was trying to put them out of business but he felt
that traffic congestion was not sufficient reason for this action. He
said that the Commission was not considering the Airport employees. He
added that Mr. Chang has been at the Airport for 24 years.
Mr. Quiett said that the catering truck operators have received loans for
their businesses on the premise that they have customers. They have
relied on the Commission that they would come through for them and they,
in turn, would come through for their customers. If the Commission lets
them down, they will be letting down their customers.
Mr. Quiett told the Commission that all that is needed in this situation
is a little creative thinking from staff. He asked the Commission to
either abandon this effort or defer it in order to give the operators
enough time to encourage tenants to provide space. He also felt that the
relationship between staff and the operators was very poor and mistrust
has developed. He felt that steps should be taken to correct the
situation.
Mr. Quiett said that Jun's Catering was given a permit from JAL cargo to
operate in their space in the evening when it is not k ~'ng used. It was
turned over to Ei'een Si Ion of the Airport and they hav not yet heard
from her.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that that issue does not belong at a
Commission meeting and can be handled by staff.
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 10
Ms. Linda Chan of Chan's Catering told the Commission that her company has
been at the Airport for 20 years. She said that the Commission does not
realize what it takes to operate a small business at the Airport and ">at
some nights they make only $5.00 at a stop. She said that Jun's obey:, Die
rules and does not feel that this new policy is necessary and will, in
fact, hurt them. She asked the Commission to withdraw the policy.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she called the Commission Secretary and
asked to have this issue calendared for this meeting but was given to
understand that Airport staff had already scheduled a meeting with the
operators for this coming Friday. She said that she agreed not to put it
on the agenda until she knew the outcome of the meeting. She assured the
catering truck operators that they have not been forgotten and the
Commission is well aware of their concerns.
Commissioner Goosby said that there was a meeting about a month ago.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that there have been a couple of meetings.
Ms. Gittens told the Commission that staff has had two sessions with the
catering truck operators and there has been some progress. Staff has
talked to various airlines and other tenants about taking on catering
trucks. She agreed that more time is needed and action has been deferred.
She said that nothing is scheduled to happen until July 15 and will most
likely be deferred until a later date as the meeting with the caterers is
not scheduled until later this week.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked for a report after the meeting with the
operators.
Ms. Gittens said that she will have a memo to the Commission by June 30
but cannot commit to an item on the next calendar.
Mr. Stevens said that the operators gathered 2,500 signatures to present
to the Commission and asked to whom they should be presented.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that they be presented to the Commission
Secretary.
See attachment.
J. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT TO GO IN TO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM.
/an Caramatti
amission Secretary
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 11
AZ-
\&
e>/^7
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and th? other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
1
OCCUPATION
/T rfr^tp
s?*~/°
COMPANY
r^wa A-w\
■^
V-
, P/^-^uL^A-^^
#c*yyt/&
S-
y)Ai/x{
~^f,of/\gs
22-Qa
P
&H/j4in
\& i*s Z 1 ^
4mt±
&L
£fL
^f
£&£
f^ f
&3£ i
<\ f ' cwr
%M
^TFF
H
SESZ^S^s
"^T^
T
< pttAf SOBJ
vjVCTQ^ 9
PggTgg ffiSPtg
fffr*.
r^'oov Vffiss
%ra^#^
v^
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the; other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
To^u L+fTiJ
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
£**
nn Kyp&t,
V\/^ C ^Q<CCC'
£>A^
U\U U.SftNMMdtMs.
TaA
it^
1 VW j
7KK
\c^S vV^mY
uo_
f
\umMo
t&M
^A
KJOMrS Jt^ M
fA4
n
Ebt.
My m
(JAMf> swC
£L
U& A ^
T>
^
rz kl- a^-ff
/tte
f t
•y*
~ 7^
^J2* "ry^ur
ML
il Kfr"\ h\
Q P&r*yi)&UL/
JL^.
ES
-PdA
\\ti*^ Cic^\?^)f<F
fejflBe^ £o^
35S
-m
~%£
Kg S-h^
R..XIII.I.)
cZa.
■-g"
S H" -
#
-£■
L^
W
A">e/icA*
'M-
'h
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
& M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
?2l
TiacrrJU--
OCCUPATION
EI*a± S
^rv '<^c
— / ■- — I ■
COMPANY
ft-
PETITION
**-€ Si^AJ /Wp V
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
f-.tr D« jX. %X£ "N*taT> ^Ck'j .fc
Jj .
A
P; M
tq*
*X£_
^
T^
*m rr ''>
■)i ,.
feo it
flo£#
'?At<P ££sjce
< W < £ €^£.
in/
HM~
2^3 /? /7/c/r,/h*Yh ^z^PjSssLi £,
r
> -' &=
UJL-
daXLi Sj . ',/a.
'^r^-
2
i^—
L-C
•ajl
U-f/SuU
-\$/y>
■y^r
U
#o& /A^/3<r-/7
£4gi=
^
r-v
Bfoj
•^>U
*Tet4hHCor*> G
»J*\L.
2 • 5ft«4>ri
/ I
£ Lorn..*!]'
i/AL
^^rnk
(//9<L
£^J±k£]±L
$$*£ sg&u&L
ilAJL
&t=_
Alk
Jl
* !
^
Y Nvglj:
3SE
4-4
a- A -..
414
/7. >~).l-
g "Safwc^
V.d'L
XL
\ \
UA<^
/c^-~
^
Jtk^
1
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
WMljE
OCCUPATION
^qM/3/O.Q.
COMPANY
Um
INT I
u
(?t£ A1ILCN
[a /u i T £ n
// ft
UA ', T&P.
/ /
' /&/ ifSrfC?*
is f /
ZW
ft^P fr?sew*A//c
1>MITS^
'-py *?**-M
Rtyyz ^w7(
HA)
iil
£
.<VjV SW^.-r
Rc^wn p Ser \ifcp
-Ofll.
•/
/>
Crt-C~-
<Y
j^_
V^£~
//
^^v
/ /
? /
U'?tL
UAL
i(
~&isri/p S>JaaM*^T^^
^~C
*z:
%.>*w /&£
t {
/ /fa
((
r i
-L£U
//
ML
tv\c tc
T. <■.
X
^_i_
■A-
0M-
^1
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commiss ion's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
OCCUPATION
£& Umk - £j&2Z&& &&± £ ■(=■
COMPANY
^. / '
$f>9<&C<> stk/e 3 sf/i/S/Z's^Z. ./£■ Z&2lZ>£i £&££*££,
m
^S^^SP^^S
\er
m
m^^ SfflESgEE i'.V.frct
r^L^\J^r
tofe:
l 7
aur yguu£
frl
?/2nfcl P < 9&Tl \/l C£
f/A
* * o
A
1
^^'
'JZIUUL
a
^
R /I-*/? 7 f'-- A''-
u/7/-
L |4 r=^,,^
[JAL- M ^-c m
^(\(
) , "r5oVrv/i>«T
tiV\ ^(VtW^
MM /salc/
(2&L,
PAuU B/^w^M fl\EQt£MJ£
<jA
k. rocH r
y^^r.hjAA/ir.
(/AC
UA ^
tin: hii- H^MfJ /ta^p
1//FZ
J3
: v#rtl/iAjJo sf. £/?AV/?JW<-
~R<s>rt P
UAL
'//*2&7
■v/lf
^
£/££-
z.L-q.4l^Jx,\
L( &
F&Gr n\ C4Z.14>C&[2UC
'-uC'^jz*
<Lt#&r>ut-&£t-
U*L
^OUjua
■&
Hi i "*-<:
~^4JMLZ &_*.
Sc op tujceS
t//?l~
T\;''^Zy<£L
C'*^
CM/_
1
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME . OCCUPATION
COMPANY
r, ^>w^
£
-fC^/h^Cr—-
i /)-> *_ t/ , ~s £ y
\aA.
g*l
</A
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
A4f /* n
*A-a
AS-v^
/-? A^/
fi fewCD
Kgzbp
T~p
C^<uj^c.-\jlJ^
(Jjuskaj.
TJ-.S
&M-
fo~~f
SL.J,
UtL.
XT ^iu<.i«.(i. *-
R'W-(£
L/tYt I £ j)
CV/v///>-> //2&&CS
C£<3/'V
'Ac
<^ c y^ hx^
/hi SjAMAtfG/f"
fiAh^L-
m^
QjtefZ
"CT
At
^^<0^ Pc^.T
%{<^ fifm%
(?_aAAAp
Of\[ ,-
£hoa
£
U A L
Yukt ltlkrtn?r?-i
B^
UAL
mzad£** Q-^^^j?
&W
u*bC^
dint* /,^k|?
W~
U
ft
&U*
gg^ggg
S3T
■ ^jfeg^y
33
2S
r
PM/ P
#
X
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
Ba^^^tj
V, ,^W Ajf±2£^j r
WW
/ /
//■7it?l*r' '' •
/'/
*
tf~(/~ 4t'^ Lfu^j
\ tMU
-fi-U
u a c
■^-
n*&
{2A-^L
UIS£±
—— <t=^
^L
&1^~X2X>.
'-A^U&
uLmgh
IAVx^ov^
Jn^£:0 ^UJhM^
*6, , ft JU^U*
£AiUP ^&Uicj&
<*^|£> <,or^^>
g£
/<-
amP &>euicp
UJQ l I
Z/s 2A
iOh^
TJTfC
ru'lf
ut0d^m\
KoG.
^ualq Hr>^_
s9<t^<*~-
\2&L-
C/A^
1 "a-- i-*-^* —
04-L-
'/>/.
fctfrluK-
UMs
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
OCCUPATION
-fifjc
COMPANY
/U,t 4*~y Y^fr^ eO^ ' r ^iMp ^Cv'ic^ U^-TeD MfciJU^oS
a>aW/° £££j£L£
r-A/r-Cb
«3 > % L //Vg'f,
&
W-«_.
Is
r
rfcr. ,
//
//
fs*J/T&4 s4,/e*/^s*-*
fiMM 7 <>&Kl//t(> UM2&2. A/£/j,u^
~£{>r*f> ^eAS/cc
A/te"<?. "'4^*J ;CL
/
d£±^iz
6/ /f 6
/fe-<P
&£^
it At-
\^
\ v
fofe i6^y
fUW^F ^CflcU t
fa o»wf
Sjl.<j
[)yJH A ir
X/h»j/) S-e^i/
.^v/: c<y /?/s{
MAi/W-, ?VgvWW\
Ulfl-
Sfo<X
UQ
LLdl
Cfll
a /-> L
(/At-
w
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
thair permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
b & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
'^yC^r
r 'Ofy
E .ff^^c^c
COMPANY
(£&=,
f
±2JL
%
tMssA
u
AL
\ P -VAiO
Va A L^
l&<~
U^W^
A^tn, HL^tl
y^-
' /'^!: -<- y./ ' . ^/,.s Jt&gaZt
J*/ j/-^A-
y&gaaU&t
UAi
<£&i<-
-a
/^Cr
' £ '< '<*-■
UX
V^d*
UAU
Tf
t*s*G>
jtfj^ m
UN*-
?>) *Y-, j^c^i — -C.
UA
k4~">'-£ --'-
,^-;,- yy//^
7^
vwz
^-7^v>^?
R
Ci^v^^D
Jj£L
SM?.
CM
(2*£z£2±
TEEZ
IK^-O
ML
j f-/7m
Pa
t£
fit
r
^SP*?-
^cX*r*<~^
7WE
^4
#V/
CdzflZ
SL
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
UtLc
OCCUPATION
C/esk
[ggKZ? wEEiMl ^7^0
COMPANY
U-C. &;^ti -Wi/c-
c^iM^
HCT
7IH
1 (
I to QaaakL^jTvk
^.yK^^A^Ji
h
h
vf
fMlS _^ru
ti'XC;
^U ,5 . U^yLZ^r^
C.I I rt\~Q-r-r
^w^*^
l^~ ^>- ^\vi fl'h
l/M/l.'P ft***! /ft
J^k
■zf
'Jj_
&Ur
1>U/±JjUh.
rn'jx^/+jEffs- %-Stf &
/&*; //*/**,./)/£/?
~u±.&
/I
h
11 LL
(AX E
A
U. S£S,
uMH
)y\o^V\a^ l \(<oC
42l
^S
du.1
^sr
zz22
//. 7>
c l^Jr
,( fiUM^n
etl
m%
Ct-k-
gi?
£
_£42
^_
1
OeN 0.I&K-K
\/iy. A/£SrAr'«f~
E5 #/*jl*eJK*A) ^f>£JL\),Se*_
L£6
aszx
i^i^aa^
\b
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
& M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
tyj^teL &u^
O CCUPATION
COMPANY
I J A / H
hecA
^M^A
U.A.Lr LTA)^
&£U
s
&M.
(AUu
$&><£S
UQ
sf& £s?
UfrU
UJ^^
it
M
&*tt
L~<9*i*ij "V £-cA^
Pa
M
£JI
^nM- (s ^y
cp^A^y
/j<lS S<&&>
iM<-
;m£
t/y^ejLf^-
^ v^tfJ f^tX l~<-e^
WLzST
^frl- ^U^A
^ftL
i^ ^)
£UfA TFZH
UAk
£VLK TecH-
l/AU
PfaU. An+folt
ftfoP /tuaixs
e^fi,
Mac
rtUPiO/VlSUfi) ^il&fili&r
UA^
e*x^
UM
jMl
m
LLAz
i '. v -?;
/rift <■ fy L g
WU K
(K.P-*, I
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
fe^^A /fe^/fA/'C
COMPANY
'SstT£&
MCc^a*j-
M-Z£n
Si/-ru*u,c
UU,T EtP
/i^/^y
M£cW/l*//C
■/A/sr&p
'u^^S^ J '~~f. jJ^lx.^/ .
d£*=LL2=6M. i <T
u^rni^
/,
\tLf-K-JO
/7/A.u LyA/AS
^Mj TLFC
i j
pLhvvifC
UttrrQ}
,K»f><j hOAch »Vi) »j"
uft^
fe^p^^
4fcc4,-A/,-*7^
iJLV\\±&2>
JZM-
7Kac
%
ffrl^
Tt><*
/^/*»4*^fK-
MtrAfiir,
LC^
+&
(tdl±£££/l~Jfce*
fr^<r<s>i /£**. L~<~>
C{/\l
T^lA.
/y.r<^*asi .
^ur^/e^L
0£frk
U«t.+dSA>rli«
e-4
Ob*
/farffc /l^
j4ec£
at
Ift - tt
4/f=:<^r-/
oy
SEJJLCusz&xual
Of\L.
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
^£^7^ JZpbo>f±&^r^ $ £ JE ±4 & M -
% ms&L /u c
1 dirL^ l /L- n 3oaJU~~-
K&L .ft.'^f
Oi/c SUcc/fs,*^^
U *Ji rt i>
a? a -re
ft /C IM4J-L .&*/ I
ui A) i e j_
3?
1MM
S^^AC <L 0,^*^-4-
Qu L_b
/l^c<^^?i^o ^IzsC.
/%3J7TW tSc\l/i<LJU
l6z~*^^<<£<l/s.
**£s
sfA*u jebxJk
U*L-
/^7w*a^£*^wv
CUL*
/U<z£^
£&l£
C/4L2
ZJ9M ^,
Oftl-
trr (iiMof^
CHf-f
fafe t
5&
£L 0- JtfiKio
ZfTcyeKesPsd
U &L*
uAi~~
u
u±.
VPK
ffiWL £rfQ3^
UAl
v
J JfS
I
££&££
UAL
V
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
OCCUPATION
fytn.
Q-
COMPANY
( w;^F£ ?
T^7~
'hw ^5r(0^
(
L ' U£tiu
^ -.-■■/ *«
i?U*Mffi
Z^SZLz
Tiff* *
nhv±L
SpE^puilZ
ztt
{ -£M'^
■fowr&saJ
sfoac SJJiK
J//*«s> stS*/?
QA3M
RAihP
) hjh a f/vt . JlCx A i/yfj
^&L
X&
<Ul
JZ*.
<£&-C-4^
$<LTi<<U
M^
±
U,\JrC
\1 erf Zerj/.ce ~ty
d&fVlce, 4.y*,i"
^^AC
^x/ /-*
Urm/r^j
3Ja^
Mm. fort-
icL
<bftAC~~
ULl
toih
£&L — *f~
<zb^
J~&y S^A-sr
5«/.
4
•QtedkLt.
/V £ £gy^?3^
PETITION
\1
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business, in their same locations.
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
f&np
<> ... /-.
V6
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
*ym£HaQ
l^Ma^\WHAftl)J
He
N COMPANY
X.jlir ['' 3ort\flr A o
m Inlltl
mAcA I'm-if
OJlLi
(\\Khmi
1AL
'.Tto^
Vw^t-^
SJL
Bfla&HiriSs:
\. V <N I
JlAd
XjMH^ —
UMiLMlh:
AlfcK
^AL
a A u
na.chtrtt-j 7
U/?/.
/l/(Mh«itdt
LL&Lt
0a,J^*/
tf±AA
l^la^jU^^^ ■
KA.L.
A? **Z^*2>d
Q*rV
A«j<w*
fJAl
JML
/Wdcu ><;><;
dJi fe
^Lg^A
y.A?.^,
^ D. /^<f£/s*L'f£
£/**#■<
^L
w&
V-O-"^
U A- I
W&. V^upeiL-^
, U\,
"Toe/ W*i^
ggz&^gaz&^l
U A
4^j£
/y»Qc»miaT//tlg.CH
C'rtL
j* 711 ^THae-
Al
cm > ti i a
i '
tf
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
cure
lu l Z
2224zZtiuJaZ-
77TZ-2
£t2£&£4b&&L.
u
jFl
a £l£
C/Z/ksJlvhaZr*
ULLL.
1&A&UA t-4-L
//U*0
JtL
L
: kZs^y ^
/flir^msZ
,1?ifA> (V-
^ Eg
Ar-O^/ A/*&lt
^ ft/ .
&4 a^JU
MX .
OAL
£/<?
Ct/jc
J/±
i
/f/a^XtsTu^
UAL
Todi Wl/4^p£
u* <-
(£JLL
1 ■ *y ■'■ " ' ' *
1H
U 4.1
■ }Xt/' / fctfJUl^r- '
IF
"Ts
&£M
A/ £ *■- A,/ * i^^v^-/
MA :
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
<2,
OCCUPATION
£d&£J&ULZ r
COMPANY
^r^LM -
//
^^z
£fr JhaJ&
CL
mL
uMlM^hL
UM^ -
Sj»le£
gteUuiLLLk.
M- A. c
itsis- ,-^WC
(A <*- £
MaCH^iSi"
<J fl<
na m^u.kJ'^t
O • A>. 1
M /*>/&//, ^ &
U.S3->
L*? SQEJJ£^j£
/H/*Ct//AJ'S7~
UAL
Q. ^
<J4C^
jA-co
1«£±jUMl± .r-
( > i*r.f
UAU.r&fuil't
QA<
^/^^j^€^>^^
<^/?^Z-
/\flft^y~uAM 5 y
l/VAC
MIMUK
UAL
mmi JL LJjjUimdL
u/?z.
MuUJ*
22^1
/2^C+^
U/fL-
-XL
ll[nrL l^^/
\uU*t*t -TQcS/nS
( f
tAA±
ZL
tr'/?*-
/.£/*£> fi/\AC^W/ST z
uHL
UAU
M ^f^
U Al-
■M
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
fe m ■ V Ll
crv^£kt^
3.
L-esld. A/fic/JZ/K^f-
COMPANY
tiAc
[),fK filers J#a~ /ftaftiJ,cT
' J /cjjrttef F. )fjecrtrt££ u
UM
u^-^-
yTsrj/Zf -J. /liZ/Stf
M£&£dlL£L
LL i\ L
ZftS/L/C? SAWC-t^Jr dL£c_£zdU£Z.
<-•*£-
UA.L
cj&L
y/>/l'i^l^/
-Xto^Lx-S
U&L-
JM**<H
tJ floci^j-aJf
U& L
\£&L* .7?, &k*
<~>*"TI'^'£>
Tb/i L.
u£l
r
(jt?fy><L>dk~~
;Vj<w/a/^ T
U*
s7?s*AJ^ Urf a.* ollksel uAL
Uf\ (
&^frfrrtS~?S
-U
*L
<*™^<r*>~~<-^-
^zz-
ua 5^1
fl^^L^
/??rfc>^'± r
/U.J^Ui Kjj ^x
A^
auL
9. t fr "7^&/
in
I. f*AO Hlrt&t stftST
LULL
§L&LL*lsX
\K ,\ I
M&&U ^V"
(,-/?^
^2
^ i t-c^ £ /-< cjy
WjcU
■ J sua
*-*~L
W^ £/// (b7£ r
c; ff a
//^,
7
r 4JL
v~
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
>,A> L-CL
^iu
4
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
•CkAC/S/t (-■ fiti/*' 11
rbsuiL. Cie^^
U S -Pcsr/iL Sc%>.<-c
/*.
•\£x^k**j£tL<^
•#>
^~
Q LL&Za
L t C ECl£CBjL <:'/-*
MaLJfiq&JzL
O^PS
L^tsC^cL's-SA-*-
-\\Qiij(i^
\M<---<f ~$IZ2^L
ii
s~Z
_
//
U3 A'£.
1h
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
o.til
h&a ■ w* -
usl
/kfagkiL. * $
U-R-f _
t£& w*\ ?
Cs/3
/}'4<r//-/su( £/
UA.L-
jif /fn H fjs30.
Ujjc.
flnchitu-J
UAU
^^■^vC,.
/-
Zp^fZxz.
Ji/L*^
/ r
y tv4s,
//.
//.
Ue/f/ .Sidles
m£h&£k
^i .
?-*^t- l<z*^ £
^g^^H 1 f
en
tA/fL
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
■y
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
/VHP
ZS
9^
>£W^
//
/ 1
W M^9^ C
Us
Po ST/? C £/>7/><L& Lj££ ft/vF/^/^^
//
//
//
Po'TAI L-nPL&tk
;/
rnf \rV\
AH! TaQ
<Sv/
5/^J<
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present^ locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
>5
NAME
4c ™ Q
iha
OCCUPATION
WWflAvflfeif
COMPANY
KSpS
yU^^
|z-u>/ ./ — ^r~vXor
2>i g
cum
nl/hi/JAA, otsfL
US£IL
'\ J^fcV /u^
O sPs
«
OSf>S
o^Afe^c
3 ^^^
r^HA ^AM^JuWy-
-A.
Utl
y/ ^^-^i -
-' Tt
MliL
■<L*Ll
JJJJMl.
S^c^Sft/.
t
> r ^
i$6uwik
c&JL
tJSf*>
/ rd/u^/A
u&
n 4
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
a/kno/z
T-l
£UdK @k
18
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
Zis
OCCUPATION
JJ^/hf.
COMPANY
U/=l<
3FXA
U_dL
/o$c&-
^£M.
££_&&2&rl*Xl
$S^4
&**_
rfttM f.
M
QyKjCa"
«&i
(9*<^&
»<f&<
(?/irgUJ/W fi£fi76/7T -
,\SCTTf7',*
&?l£z ;yi,\Jg£.
(^oajti <£*eJ7y9t. d,s?
?<■••■. <r^
Pas~ gf/zle*
^^4- p^rf m,
u.s;)?X '
[ l . (V\. ?rKVJP^
ytdjj^L
s&-
tdft^A^r^
Pc 7~&z JwTZ
44.
fer^y/6fc
&**!*,*
. /Ay
>/^Q7~
/?£■& UctAJ S////S
/Httti? 6/t4><\
wr
U-L</
Tfc Z
^c
-Ci^ Vf\\it7
2A.
V)
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
£7 k/ (
ZU 4.<
OCCUPATION
A/frr-Ar siJ, ^
COMPANY
$<=PK UjiL
/Qjp/i/fJ?
±JdttL -fc.JrklNC
'faftt*r<afficG4
F^zfrGrtLtr.f- riy>7-
£**s
JgL
2 5 /c <f(~a L
A^^or
GfS
-= ft<s£€ gUJg^C-.-
<ce>
fiC-euf
Q_£L
£(&-<&
Qw&Wt
/?£&*■
~&5&
bo
PETITION
//
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME .1
^tSJJLki
OCCUPATION
T>^
COMPANY
n^c-o H^h
\\; V
i i-^'-u
1 Ah/rYi(yK^
£&L 321
Jtc ./.~cfc
S) i i/K.-e.'i
C/c\-\iC '-i T^cVd A
\ ,
M LjLOJ^
i be U I,.
fc> 0„, t -- /iAr^rt
/M^/A/r, //.i/jf/v^
- ;-s c a/aj c C:-- - ^
D^inc
d L*n.i*<. /^7T /
L» Li
rvn.^ ; i/*
Victim
CJ££jsm H,yh>/
7
<^>
^ m
, \£kn*y?*srl &L<UL ~cEl!jL
^kj\^c^l rhrn.
OJ& r , ^ £fe££L^ .
E
y*<^ 7M7
/ ^ ^/^r^t
g/?<^r~
GJA&0&. &sl a ^-
*
i W>
'j/jfUs^,
fir±s±L
t
lL
3
U~*A
( Lut-n thkl
a-
■ryy.ci^'^p^
^S'&t {C. {jj&tk,
- a
i fi "> Joae
ii±dtl
C/~»?< 2 rv ^ Atr-r^ pfL.
C>l/*£'CA. /#, 7£C
-XcW \
^/rcK-'vi
£gg l.OiZl
gjx££
Ck U
(Ufi.^0^ fel&i
/^ ! "
^/rn^ ^g£
L^&4 r«ij?,„i,
^J#
tP.^Vi ffi
:x
-b
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
f )fH
LL
1L
£&L
/I id 1ME3L >'Mrr.jf\ \ T>hl
6A '
(IlkXiuj gj^hdju
2xu±<
fY\tn ^' :
DH U
7Tffl Tffiiyitem
£XfA£±
- Drf U
<knnuA /&%,
&€({M^Z
r .4.M<-M
LA
LL
L
\\
ML
■vOS-
M
M
'(
7w^
hX
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME ; OCCUPATION s
fw £ Qfa- ffo faux
COMPANY
CiMVc U/v *^
lv i^u
W£M.
c^L
/ A
OC SvP&ZSP'S&Z. -fhaffrJ ferru^
MwriL
•\VP3gjftg5
--22<2 /ZV.y^/i/gA-
- /..n\ **j(, yc «-^^/^
/)£tui>/l/
&*SL G>
1L £_
MuMi
n<^~
ym
3^:
z~S
f/.r<CM*V
~'?z/^r
&Sj
kVrvi
zzz
-Ic,tt4«*,~. r3ih.- YJA-lr.
SAnp.
j3h
Mil
Vo
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
>,y,y ^'Cw^
\A
'. :•/■
s-> -'h
22
±
y' t-
'-* ' u/ f*-"^ &«^6p
iZA_L
(/ A . ^xflQc ^
StHLUS) 'Jhtt**-?..
fisTk-i_ auruLK
a sr
£
Qz&J&JL fhi'S,
C f'- 'Al <?
s Drtv<^
£e>^— _£sL
aL fr*^
^>e/^
tmjl£L^£dJ.
/?/-/?
nfl
.6' S i 1
4-
.Asd
a±j
£ jjr; fo^*^
Oll*£aJL [JhdLtd&b
fi^nyS
<US«S/f*<V*
(2l££zl# dxL
Sf
USPS. MviHautvCA
U.S1P5 ;
l.rrsr.J-Htrr.lf^j,
C ti^t/rcy C(f>rj_
fA%rw6 rrfrcfis—
m-S- c^r^^f
MzL
, nr* — ,
J
r,ii/rf
JZ
X(^v-
rr
T7Xr?t
V^O^^;
ft^V QSJ&k
^H
ISLi
\*V 'itS>'U^\
JjCjJtsudji^
£32
5 ^> si < - ■<- id 1 /
Eft
■ »rri l i . — r r i i f * u - - i
r /-7 >C
M.
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
V
NAME
'Life
OCCUPATION
/^#&*;
COMPANY
CJ{ v&***?^~(~-*^^ m .
yy^ii^*^-^cy
/%><?,£# /i
-Tir\AJ<./\d+
4 A-lliA4m
£d£ /*>><
S/K £&Z
7> Q-fULfaAU&sr
U
ALU^^J
£nA)MS> GuPbtWttQJL
(Jd Usjtf&L
c*~iuUivr
ftfia^ t> ^\TC^
Ptecetftton Q>
Ga^gobJ
irfcM fWsr
H *\sC Uj.
'-Q^c^^L' SslW^-ij?
JjlaMALCk
Ve<W 5&A jt*£j
#.<SlG,
^*:j
^ 2 *>-
.VV" " ■ ') ■ ■ >' '
7] .
— i — ; — ; — 77 ■
WM£lJ77,
™*
jA )T^Vu v -^ £■?_
7>
~^s^
2 rr.ta. \ . r^S^r-
m — rym ;■ y>H^ j/,iy^\
Ul£L !•>**
t^ </ //^^T-T/^V?'
frS' /\fahft\\
&rfart£jL ^v^-frt^^
6. ^^3 t 4
llfjMOKW
'%' fa+.
Gu&ztL
HJZ.
s*\;
LCICC- /^£
Cf^OL^-
^V«#
^
INXfN
^ o p V V^V V \ kO
J5&>Z& <£^jA
s&vrs'.t'^p /0^A^fj>
/ r y--- i *ow //,*<■ ■/<
i^Mr.U£j»
v&L-i
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels.
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
K,,# ttf*^.*: Cj.l*
e
COMPANY
CxAtM^ifa^
£
A . *AAcC U^.
Cl&sJL
/5^>*v^zc<>trf-fi.
-\b*~- U/W>y
J7AAAKV
mz
y yK^Ur>a^
y/- ^/^/^^
Mt-
r_-4?yZA-
flAl4l#£/ZA*r
tOzLZ&c&J.
CL-trX-
h i'
/Wc^ClM^
%
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
tS £ P H- QlcqLck.
OCCUPATION
f\jM?&|£M^
COMPANY
pt\Tio^AL CAK-^-
&QTU&X\Jr (Jj^k IJju^fi£.
^w\6^- —
£
K/^OJfyu
llfiA^-
<(
\ % ^
m r~
^\j{(<(\ f&^<\ <i
S&£a;
ui
kte
if*
/6'7£'%/*i—/J&//t M^y
■ffJA/T-^L. /^6^6-A/r'
f^/9/.o^^L (fa*? TfTAr^i
%
t/O
(UjJfhL ffc^tj
JL
If?
(sAJL
/l^^r^J^
nu:
1 ^Qa 7
\ I ,' jg
i Liu.
<Q^2
^g£^
S£R\/iCE
MA UOAJ4U
IM&^MMk
*&=*/& l ffc^r
A/Ar/'^/A/.
Z^kZiLK lii^CJ ^
±t (2SZ&
QjuUrti iju
A-/ H-f^/x-g (
• - js *^'
^y(X^^---
^ — -
k(&^
jjA/
iZ2S
x zi^Z
^sz?
S-MUt&*'H0>J
aJaTi&a}A1_
^J£
i t
/sa -'Ac A6t=^
.U/Pi^-M
V^O
^Hsf»4
:pe^\fge ;
MA^lO^i
w->... ,: V K.-^fc, »:(•'(/
ftiUC A fori.
5 c,
4
if /"A."
//- i/i,i 4jUA ^
(^ 9 --i^^
A^a J-*^ */
at
.J^s.
'/V-'
Ytf<*—
A-?/ 2 -
Ul<- 'i'*-*
d'^C * +
fe.
bl
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
^Jg*f /=*'L<.\J
UJ^iAudjC ££&&L
/££&-
'^Q-
&i!%Mt
(]rj<3-oLht&
'Joy a/Act?
Art£&cJ+*-' tf7<£//'.>C.r /iL->- r £*£ -'C r
~£Z*
aj,^> /A,y X-. /,/-
r? fh
OU dd£
QrrX^.^L,
//.
&J#
^
£
&4dL &££&
^3, Gi.\.,:y,'-,.rr
ad*
OPtP/mOfHS C?£[i fillQMS.
Tl^A
■ujAWjP
j/s
(,T\JU
^J>^y^^-J SzX-J V
US Ps
fifty @M£ti&££.
Sff/: *V
5 7 ^zc
ip/^
^ w^y
6piA(
StitfiC/flfc GMoJt
*~r^n-
t\uk
tekj A
baMk*k
l)
r JmAjd&i — iXI y/^
O^'^v^
Gr/etP A:,"£/Cjk~
fSa**2±J M && o
0^ tE.
it ( v itur
6 '< --V
^^^
_^a
2
r ^ r~
^_
u
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
lU^M^. 2^bj±2±: (T~^c de^Us
f{'# tiv
COMPANY
a. S . /°.S {
&
~EjX
J) &£*i
\U6-
aa
QfZL-rA
^jtj^hdf
z
;-/— . \-r.r-,r
tTK^kc^l Sok^a
Cf\L\ handier
* < r rk
■AS_
6 Ky ccxp
£"-
'fTN
-_$±Ak^-
frifL-^sy ,
"/fc/V/rj-w./t '"
APfa?
^G/'/Wltt
< gg L L£&d&L
J.
/unta/' fi#/f<r
/</& <fy*fs
w^;,^
iz.
s&J-r - 3 .
c 1 z~n^^/'
&&?
V^'^TA
tX^X ^Wv~
-U£
b urr*
2E
mi
ix^^—- j^&v]
m^:
*£^«-+\
jL
J^JZ
tl.AivtPS*-iei/lc 61*114-1 J
I \jA
Mb
vh-i
i
y™-'_
•U-A H A
CI
4 ?/j+m
Lu
_C
/%v/
f*
S~^ * ''' A- re -y->^
/A,
LXL
HrSASU
^r
y\
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
J&n A. ff6sj-
OCCUPATION
VP-^a/es
COMPANY
fin/tahon M&h
■ftfbL
S^L^
'CO.
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
%
NAME
E KWeSf SC04AJ
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
-Tile^Ay
JAM* (&&r<2-
— Y — 1» — • ~~/
-Te'igiA LEA v J.^a) Cb.
rtafLG* flgr
c w&o Apt
c $ft
C
-Ou
camqMus:
g ps ,
Jov\o Papik
rfWi^i^Rv
gATEL^A-W
C&&& 3
m&p-
^<=-s>
C-Q.JI^
5uJ)£rvlsci£
&«1
<?<->
*V,
GfCTtiuA Y
(±M. £&LS
j-jj*. WL
Mk>
kL
ic^o*pe<$s
I fz cusrnasSfrts
&l£L fer-
aJ(J&
aME^E.
ix.
3J.
Ahf
4mfonT $aaW< frt^fr*. veJ/ot^
t(
rnvonr
£.
A_
1°-
PETITION
V
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
€^L.
COMPANY
T7T
^C6&~^&tsZr /*fa'/ ^f/rt.
7?
O;
i+t^f? ^5/Z us^l
t>
4
&2&k QdJC
cs-i la.
J^Utfart yupez-vncfZ
* S 7
K^JTCZf
TtbyjA
\)(7ir\>y^
W*JuAL(\
^f 2 -
\ /M^Z.
(&/_ fro i M£^t&*
{ Li^Tz/s
nw
¥^
fy^-^CfC-
21
AA.
\*d&b&J&u£
t:
j>/n-AiHy^
^
£,, <? ■ A^i^VK^'''
<^»1> Qu&Usg.
/A
~/i^<P^i-^ C ;, , .
>^--^<- ■'&-■ St*-i
fc-f''' /KfttOG?
11
■^L
o^rTT** £Ldx±
AjuAl
e.
%
^D^'-l'O
Szcfy
£t££2
-3^
3&LL&6&Q
L *^c^cm
TfaG/trf'i^AufiP
71
^a^r >t4^
ga^fliL
^/?c^
a
A-^=
£-'
o,, r
/-fr i /-/aW/(
^L
".^OJc-r .
2
/./I
H>
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
'PETITION
Vi
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
N/\
U
erJ\£-Go ^g^o—
Aire- Ov*_j? A-D A
M
CMJjq AAZhfi
ArV^ CfrU/hllb-
"-&& '
^&/i I
q A-fitC^c? A<Zf,^Tr
Ft i <fc Ci *<"*£> **-
f-v^
J&aii.
^ _^^/urr
^j ^lIM
(Zl&*u~>-)-\
Pj&cy* \frS±
A>, , (f
E
A*
tA.
^?/Z? J/***/
/)/M
5UP£JlD/5o/2.
3J¥U
■'tif QH&7Z.<.£>
Ekzi
(hAyUKiAx^jL
'txZh^kxMu,
L&Aj
<HS<V>w^rt\y;<. €>(UllC^
C W\ ^uVeA>
4J4e oft/'^
/k^c/^Tgr U/visU*'
QiSjajshsc
Ass.!p..-Q-rp.7
jQg
jjg^=gz
&**& 7£^-T-
£sc
VA
for^ ,/ W^rM
**W&&*~£rl',neA
; &IL. ^ -tJUu^Z^t-
o 1/
<S£JA.
$'t///i~Y 0<_Ei2-l<-
PAA
\ \P, *y\/t-C<^>
1 1
1 1
ptiu^:
I -S)^i^£>
7?V
fe£gg l
Oh.
Aa^Lt&ZinLZ
&j M
fayp
(AtiiT^&tei
s
-#U^
//i) fevWk ZZ
r
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
^J?.&-
B-ftfrK?
.^C/^h gX^ dlZ flfui/j. Qjfi/,^t
A
COMPANY
zs±A
JL
^A^r^QN
hd k/>*
A,*yrf+ &r.y'Zr ].*/+-£
iQvrjbijiS <x-sulc
L^.
A t *s //i ^ S^EiQliJS.
fa ALSL 'p],A'.'U J
VA
■^A
faAa.^ CqJ_jJ^
t
i^yirwt
—lL
-Sl
jOa.
^1_C
YTrf<Wk_ ^/
l*^* £Jk^
£±
i a ..i v a
£>^ rtz*
JC
iC t7t^y~fiitr-fk. '%hm.(t^(n
ifrU2
4r
/L^,„ 7//*>.-J7',: O
25
//..nfso )/?<),-■ j£ as i_
ft* ^
*££.
>^ ^ /^5r/^.
7^
A-^-
^y
4
sv^sx^:/^^^
jafe
infyujiuif
-Ifcfl^
fir». 1SZ V
s
fctiV-'L
/f/ZL.
Sds£jj
£&*t&\ per.
I
zggCj: jMihZL
V^rf<
7>
ax^s
sE
4;/ftL. &C4.^ M/-
<£79
& & 4£
,^U^.
azE&jz
UAS$
1G MuQr+A.j.r
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
**<%.
OCCUPATION
3
^^< H/fWpfvcj
COMPANY
/M4.
//
fef^S^
/ /
If
u.
n
V-'£ ZC i£M-^*
JJL
14.
^ffh
-y^*-«»— luL^i
<=C3tx
i f
)f
//
i ■ i
/Cu;/ &~u& —
LL
M.
h hi
M%£)
TV
Hi*
1L
AAU
1L
J_L
/ /
W
J-L
AA<l
RMAP SVc
*\ala
PMejiiWl
Ar^VU
V
I llll M— ■
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
X
n
&
NAME
OCCUPATION
m
QftR&LLfr
Tk^k _QRtvlg.fi
COMPANY
'Oy^dU
-pQ^ *S-T&P*t>h&£ Jl ^rt<L&s<
Cm. lyzuufc^
(Jfifan.
s&^y&*t~^^j4^'ji<s.
s/S^ ^
y J*U<o
\£±22-
Irusf ^;£
£*£-
^ <&^?y^~.>?^,
'z»Srte Co?/**
Ziti K&£
os?.ps
Lyi £&x/WS&(
Mz%iwU4&jX2 tjt^AjM. M*AM
. M\foe fylj-p-?^
Ik
K/r.y
at. -l* /MJAts
Thuds'?
<**£ &£JUk
.&
^22fe^kf±a2j£
f T<*JU^
*4-
3 ft a
^/&U^C6<^^
USAj£^
^7m*j**+*-^l,_
t%4
^yA//f//^
foff/fcrfrcf
^7?zsk/i^
j.s?tfVgr bccc*»&*->7~ CcjZ&c:
G&rsoAy fks7Grsr~ Sez^czrs
&££*&£: CJ&totet A+C*>;eA* g&tikk
Maataaa —?
■' ■
Q
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitcher-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
V7
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
2>*2- ^w.y^sfe*.
^^^y=^C--/t
<r ^-*>_
^4z
l4jaMJ£^L^k^£.
jZ
Si
C VUA-lX-7*-
/7?<fJ**>
S^r
QjM&aft
MXc^--
JMML i£jgg6^
Cfifc
&mlul£
f im^±
H/LL<J{
t^La
**
'4-
(AtM ±tttM±
f flSTfl Cl#fc
il.S, P s
C£lH
^A
•^stOftQjpfXMMB^^.N
jj^Sai^fSgu \. y&cA
\s&*fu(\ _ 93COC4~4r> —
4^^^^^
fc-f? ^ ^^
CY/ sPrWjjt^ c ,-
jj^sas: ^<
S2££L
■s — It
\23te*±.
"^f^^ XX*J%\
W-llxtlAjhUsg DMaul/
Ac*
s.
^-^
^&/z^-
. cM wmojff^
fifty} r< /^^W
Sft/Tty ^.,A^<r
A,fe>v$h $?JTb.%e P,w-L
M
^lA>Mt^
U£L
^s^:
n^rw ^/vr
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
£&L& izm&l. ^]^// f?M r £>c0i/*»r- /^/t^-cD
2.
*WC CM
gA^f 5 UK j/ I ££. ^^ f "Ugl
JB ^ ^L^>
^firxP SeTgcs/cr
U/o/ Tt?£>
I* aJdM/jL
';. SMS
&f<A<f} f<g£+/(C<?
lsH''7~(5<0
<\\ — \eu-\~*
dJSaLSs
£j£]CgL
^^^
fe£
&*»*>of ^etwc-g-
UUCT&?
//
//
/'
/7
'/
If
(I
UP
*u
IK.A*^
r
tr
UM- L
Iff- L-
L- » <~
i 1
!/ 7
LiJ.L
y/
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the otner permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
2^Q2
OCCUPATION
Cfoso
COMPANY
£>
Ct^g^
Al
T^^ h^ZIZ.
q&ZzpS z*
T
&3 '>— -
'h',T-hi:;h\N
O-^
;r s?r
&mi
Ejfik
bC
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
X^^-g
-<-/'< "'-*
-P-
COMPANY
^
faJd^
£jgva i
Au^gauvJ Cr»*<>m-
^CHAuyve^
*4~s
-JZ/ZA
^>o
?'</£«-'
wJgZutejt
^ /&*^a*
<Ze&l£Ll^
/L/Cjlfl-CO JHfeA /A C
£Aj V61
A//C*JA-/- C&f~r*£ Ct-/OA,
■SoS^icl
V<A<X A «- *\ OY
e V}&y~i
$
hi
\ w>;
yci^
Li >
^vi U<T-
>s&^J3Lu^t',
'£oo*f^ Ctp-
<hrLc-Cf
J>? ' )f)
^V^rz^r
SU\
j^^jt*
^((.iViQV^
£* *>
fc^<-»ua£>^i-^
l£^%r^
2D£l
vc
vi^iAS-f^^A
"^CV^/V^
^L
v 1/yy.#:> 4^^
#■
TaFX
Li..
P/g ,^Tg<C
fcv
/vRi V
4^Wih .^CK^r
f}Sf)P
&- M~ ??.
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
5/
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
jQ& Ju^
&frtr/fi/0 fr&r.
A/*/er/{*t/ &&T
hza^k M ft^c/i
/- <$<j . PhA£f^> i ^>£/Lj«?£.
JUZSL/fJwZrST
Sdu^AKwJT .*■**• cUcfc, NCKX^^KlT
^
<Z&£ClLd &£&£L
/)£?*/) /UP ft- TF/9/vs ■. 4<z?/vr~
AM fT Tf j&Xl
A/y*TH(Aj£S
btT/S&Zf/
M fr&Ur
*$c
/JotrtQcir'
fj&B&L&j
'or^uj^^jf
JOfj
?
JZiS
£<Pji**&st Z£*u<t*
Mgvtr:.^xt
&££±L
A£X
•i m
Vfi7%
/UWMw*ST
A/"//!
&&
FX?F
■ /t/ £g tSL
-'/)~r/ j-v-
ZLjfc
S/Z .<^mro*j Afar
6ltdld
5*)-
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
:\
UM . lM£L
AA fUlTCtttiCF
COMPANY
AA
lS 'A (L*u~p
'J.
r-c-<q^. A ; ivQjrf&h-j^^L ;
3-d-
fofo, ^fM6{44
^ELR pJbvtuLs*.
, < Sf/:1/*'l,fcy fay
s
fvv^.
£<L
^r I
teiJUJA*i \\
£!>££:
r
^
r'fr*-.'-
45^
fefc^
it&AtL
^
y/jt
fin p
DELTA
L va vf , Xi
T~ J
fik
TO
NvEfL
Vt^SftKin^ li)Af^
O—
?*out<
^e^J .^ 6m 1 pi v -(
pr
^
<i
^
SMc,
■^^i.<?>'
fdnLbsJi
vi -. iy ii. P^^vC^^r^-
1 -n-g^.
--^ . - - - - "S
-2-£
/l/l^/l
?ZA^/2^
Q £ii£*a
-V/W
LbLL
j£jU* .AlX^s-^
<<tY* >f
Limcta*^
ivTUN.
/iW/^HrT K£iZlr&(L (JNt -rrftvMEg
'2hkL^J^l^uAUp_
W2r
^
y.j/y*yj
Jl^jL
^a
fr
■vCi
A.
1/3 <* w
T
Ponded Qf£u£/±.
53
C^a rcf v^/
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
K s^/ve.
NAME
v* ^ ' ■ y ' — —
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
M P v ,o All A.
Calf [e . kovAj r^ejf
1c£^>b?r7 4
A\^:. 'v: .,Q,- : rC
CaAqo^
fY)os~/ c ««j rzc wcA.
ff-
f1\e
<3*3£a <S7tegUASa/?
OietjCQtoA
C/IC&O fcf
MfyiCfrKjIsr
? /
6d£XJ £& 2k
^■P %
J^LtL
I 1
t.k^
d£iz
sr
>^
/^v^Av
^L
ftx^
u^
g g to
to^a
w.y^/w
ftlQmspn /pm?s
lUL&l '-
w^ LLfea
V k^i
/^
U f'C4l
u i:\p4
&$-
*\ /'~-'j€'/>a.*~^
I L T)\)
<£«±±
^
fi
.-: //, d
,t / ^
^
7:
L^l
SJ.
sy
PETITION
&
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
fr//M JcA^sm. e/Ar. tfj/D/sf 5/^ /??***£
^k
^Al/JitC- (£ui/
rJ
^SiL
Ui-L
n!~f~i't- /<-/
/fydJjlALJ^fJfiJ,^ . ftfaff&l/.
~^V
f\\<lpif}j CO^tY.iiLS-O
rt^/ss^y,;.,..; JStcatiaL
2M&L . rr /;
n
s r
2^i/r
uL*
f^jL/i
r *
frUc
^/
->
22 3 - 1 r —^^' i££££ i
^(ert-^nc *u
r ,FlM
|v7^
iijL
; *> / / - -^
CJULL - r " c '"£■
/ : v»r ... /"•
rs
^ . >. j,:
:?ly4- .'/A'
4-
'S'crr stes + _
/9^^-~
IjtzL i
j£.
*^(
•ML
u<?.\k&\j^Z
cVWa Of*
7>M
, '+JLA C- >
C /-€AjL
// ^ y
2ihjJ^m^
it^
rif&fi?/ii72.% i
Jaj^?*
^
■^f-
r L c L
/) ( w A/t$ BP
eJ b/ • ^^^u ^-w
!C
^
^6= dj*#*.
j^is
/j'tV^i>-< <^L^^n-i^ t
/~V, La •
(*---\^- J
t^ v
6vO/gV-^£
^r_
k£&&£jE
S£jJ± SA.'x ; ,
J /ad 'Y.^u
^A>y ^ il'/^
_£
51
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
V
e a
COMPANY
^
1/T
Its
Pte*£k* rLct+-L£jz^ U~$-pt&£C£. S^yui^cZc^.
j-^Aj\A+~^. t / ~i*j3kj flfi^<pc b°ffi
^L A^-C^cci
<G4£4r /*../% ~*rJC
■Sy*(- /&£.
^t^U^b
fVi-6-r QhjL &
U.V f.xl^-^
^ ^n\v\vC^_ fc\TV,c \ cm ^ ~sJ5JJD
rtT/s sre.v4A«„
d£* ££L l£££JL E&rcUL
^•.vx/££ &/>/££* S
"£>/\/MMtS
jLif*uJ5xx£fo .
&£!£.
C=>*7c:\Nf\\
JMdL&LA^.
A U&JSJJJ&
7% Jyu*?/^
JLEJJl i^ii^r
6JJL±k
JL-D&&&L
Pit
L±_
' Zfr
7p qZxZjl
zM&Mh
bXeckfl^Yr,
U/JITTHD
W,
.(jj^.^f
Ch^rt^-iK
tk
k4^
''<M*6-
SA
LcLl.
-V
7,
^±U
SJLUL jlULslI
C] N/
.*t_ . n a . y
°TV
f\sSou£rz» Jjjf^
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
y> >&£#-
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
j£# J F^/ft=*-r>->tr~CZ^ iKtievcTcti -7^-/ &±-&—k.
>', Q^z+zzdL
HZ$-
5* //?r r> / y/p-*-*rs*
^rrtfekk^p
,?
dtzJL &&■■■•* n £M1
r/?C ^.yssJ^\<lr
J&A -
??^Sr>-rt*J*z ^7$
U^^C4^~
\&Lrfs/L. fll i?<± <L ?yi'/<
7?->o-&*£^ /c*&r>n
■/*'-
\ MM^
££rf
V^cyfa^p ^I<3^gj
/v?av/V; ^ <.
^»e/v
B^tfL^f Aj&
2dZ
7?^A
iV-1
>M^4)fl
o>V
A^^
<£Z
^
S
w
^T
^w-
J*£A_
kc/? ezi t f s ■
*^
\ ^aas
/$ -tx-Ast^^. Z/u7Z £v*/e£>
IkCsJ^I
j*j- c&« A^T
jAfl^) At ft JLja,*jL
ffivj 255 *^
3E
^M±M^£-
-zfa—Gsu Q
^c
■^fc ^. ^^r
^^
L ^ S
j^2
tT^L- Cl-?Q kt^XTT
^u
-^A. (''.cW? ^^:
_^_
V *^
^£a^£_^JI_
^££^L
J$£A CAnca s<sr.
dm.
frtUi 5i<l ^W
iiJ
4££:
^ ^/g* ^ ^ .5^ ,<:»^>
^7
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
_NAME
OCCUPATION
feffo TSAMf
COMPANY
ARM&4 C.AtftrO
/Yi5wn !\\€\'tfc cthiAGJA 7'tUs
f&rfacs] dorac
p^>\ V^^p^su^s.
^YTl^^^^O P^"Y W_Y^e^ C^W^-S^^
C V STCTu ?> fci K<g fe^_
^vv^O CH^RCc
^ay'sS .£</■
Ci.- w
<l. 0^7.^/hJS A-
SL££JiU
1 5 S
/^.
4ilLtU
&A&i4£
A/?. tUtr-^,:
: //x /?///^
M^
-l l^..v/,r
iH'hQlf Ccfbc
/J,
A, A-
/•- n
A(£i~i. fu'f c Cg/i n.
Pxk/ /Wv
^nt
s7./?tf.
{(L^JUAjJI >
JZZ&M
A/ll-CALfl,** t^./t^/^
A
W£>tr ^f\
i>c>Ai
L^21
J Ac^.
A . V"7L"
■ ■i-tf.l
f7K
LH2.
_i/
~ ^ / ■ ^' /■/>
ffwrt Ac ; t>v\t
o>
A/ 'Tc~ D
CW U
73^
•^--^
— iT h
59
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
m &. dtdL^jZ^ m e^^^ iC -
/J&<ZTh vOesI
£&_
M+*-4
/V"s-fA h/.aj
4-
<y
te<*±~
UJ.-9 0-' &&£
^ gZ^>
**/£€:&
d&£Z2L&£2&£.
/M&CJtf
/UcMlHuez?
/V<>=cA
sl/a/^]^
mz^JLau^t
&LkjL
UM
M<~/t /)**,/ r
C£mj&&.
+
MFr
LL
M
Ol£Tl-\U^£L<>r
/&t;#£<S£,yC£-
^quA ZXtA^-c-B
^tU^^yj
ASusC &£u^-tJlj/^.
=l!
1<Z_^~jCT/L<cZ.
§SL u )3Sk±&
i /C- ~&t^^Dtf zzE~
#^
Jet
A-'tJ^~
tfJL£S, <UML
PosrwP/cg
-ry^je^A,
^2<,-t<
'7e&~^£.
A
KUr^JfZ
rf rt wt ^
C'-/ f c,-.^.r^»/'<s'
/* ' Qtv77/^es*>4^/7
WiZiL MMl
,\jJLl Liu
4J
HLjJL QjU M
1 1
i i
Vk
Wli
m-L
; w/^ Cfict-tfAvk.
E Lf--HU.'K
t>3
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
tit nf\h kyqlL £iC&> -Df&J&xt*.
S-7//1
y ***>& g>j2~s *
S^/Jj
IIjZISl
<r £V 4
4*
IT'
/t*fr <,
21
S/=s4
1,/f ft*
££>*£
L£a£.
Hv-'Slkri
Eh
Mr
^fifl
M
'.<.<-*
J^fft
SfrJ. rftsZr.
&&UJb£ £ '/>,
.i '---.■■- •■,
(k&ki $££(££& u^mcAac
&£AB
it.
4-
T£
5JLZJEL
•fsjtisr'td! tfc<+&L^- -
/%*<
F/4
$££*
ijfl&mi
££l£
fa&fc^ /MM?-
UXJ^Zdd LT/+
S-r/A
£&< <£
T-
STf/'fi
^z«
£j£=SXl
o^p
S/f/T<
S /^/a ^?^>>vr
/It*"/-*.
<X//ute/£
S>,f/A. /?7ci/sis\
5f<0 /rU<«?~~
Zri/* /7^.;-
So/ZQ/SV''' 1
H^E
£$
UvMfncw/s
^Tih^ <&bz_ ^s 7 '
QO
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
<*2>t^
'■^f-Vr
X£x&
'222f-
~7
&*£&!££&£*£ -t^^psr.r?^ <;?':/?
[Ot
cA Qr ;?
fb^r Ufr *j C
STi &
-77
2^
v;x as* ^c
gyU&fru
UMaL
V^^ fr t.
/.
t^v-^ts
Z?c^.&<*^
\jh
*J<?£T -^cK
jU±.
±£
k\ W
:v.-^,rw>.
a am s-^ a:
d,i,!C^, u ^ Sg
iSE
/4/>- 32^7] cwAstcT? <=>/i—j
1 i
i/i+h * L rtj*
^7
jJuX-JS+sJ*4
xA
iaaa^ /^fe/^/p
-^g*V
^■^ 222
*irs?/&
TcTT
g/7srp coc&tn
<o
y^
// ■ /•->•
\*VV<V
^ ' srJx--^' .j^.s^J
!s ^ /c ^
«^S
,9ft #
t2£L4&3te#/Cll
mmmi
mM. MUstteh
J2u±£Z
G& iJe, y\ & fc -^"fc,^ ^5
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
<!l
NAME
OCCUPATION
F5 i=>7 3 • Ch^o Bvn ft? ey i ex
T,
COMPANY
TL^^~
ki
\\ ~^>-^ -
^7/g/f y/Vt^^A/ /Crtrt/ 7 JfrC \t,i£fc
4£
-er-R. r/bu a
Uf A
-Zjtrj±
K_; OsU-
At/- y5I
V^Av<-ldll)lL^
'. Wi A.,
/^i^aiMJl^
T['/ £
£U
\ Vi
&£.
^
"' 7 , ■
teZrsi
\ >/v r jJ-*y
■ .At'
^
^A
£5E
"/W/q
.' E- Arf PJ t'k fij
J -
m ^L
T v v ,9
£S£
7 a. •/-
/^HD-«^
rne*-l-
4
y~»-'
fcgjfcf;. 7^'f 7
u^i
-0-
a7) . .^vmW-i.
XT-f^
££.
5
XJJUS.
A
y&n,
451
r^p
?/>.*-
• t \)/ t 4
re^
,/y^
ZZ5
PETITION V* ■*
'*~ y &
^ , ?
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME OCCUPATION COMPANY
/. &**:**£} A. AM - , T^'A
13 - ;?£ ,. 4_, -??s."# A'<?«X ~.t - 7. tl ■
^ M^.fc ftp T^a
tt
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,^'^ s ^ aTc:
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
jcjgHSs \ic,UA%iCC
'^IL&>^(\&vJ>ZkJU^
(LhLz.
KkiAp
PA/O —
CA-BX* q
^fry^//^
fcHriblAW
MfiCHftoMC.
AMfMt^ft?n^fJ
Q r y \ r trti[&\)£lfii
}\WJb( 1 fMUif<
, C cj\o^^>~olr> L-aT v^* «-> j
Wtt, - fjPiM%
li
O^-^o
%>}
&~/Ac
&1L.
1\r&*
Ccc'vtr^
-'•ryvr
OS.j.t*^ ft/xk-oy ^\
/>\ C^y^A
]£M£ -fatrf
Stxtt v>v.o^^ *& 1-
t v
FT
A,
hfcT^ ,C7&-f **> *.
U'rCf^ /cA^r
/ j^o — IMs
/~J^
LrSr^N?, - ^ A_
£
^.-fogWu
-to.
Safi^
jQgatt±&
Y
I ■ I ri — > if g I . ■ »
Z:
J^ftu 7/r Vri,.*7t
PETITION
fr
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. ,
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, A^C^TA S C/4/e
«
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
3 $3h£Js L
OCCUPATION
A\<2. Rg'chi
COMPANY
UK-
%. %\\\:hki
4
Ul£iC
to
mil
M2
\i&yf*&K-
^r
s/
£ -^.{z.^ I '
) W^,-fr*fe
j£pf£
\AJU-o<-.
w
Air Kel4&
o^h
f
C^
^Z
ffc
^
afjz .
a**s
f?^*
>K1
A& Gj± i *>
-4-a G
4>- ^
£
£2«_
/f^ /i/l&cJfi/wii
M tk£&L&.
22
V] S> >s
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,/VoCTA b <2>4T£Rlu»3
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed ,
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
■» ,--
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
AS/M&
9v — >>
WaxVaviiG
kA
A^
\*nA. ^i I ,ia_, r\.\J
>e.'-4&(*^JoftleZCZ~
±
Z2
^A
mm,
fry^s/-*-' V* 2&£*±£g !t
£u ^vft- h:
c <^t^>t«a_
C2J£t£sJk£&. ~rf&t*s£
JLA
a //
~WT 7 ^F
j>
,4<A<
"cyi ^
Ayi>
M
•Q-frHAiir
7//.t,U-\ CJ>iAA
U^*cL_
MAlLHWDLBt.
??l(^A
k&23 £ <
■ I/.,
fo~£^*4?
fl^/CfyUs^
o>Ul...JL
WL&4P±
^U^r Zktt ljt £>"*?*■
^tfZ&ljyJtttF^
LjlS^-^j
P/V z-^*^
^^>
3
^i 5
m aaaa
MecKlvii/'.
±El
UJ J jZ i
L,**>U
u
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. t
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, A^CSTA s O+T&RtNiQ
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed .
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
////?.'u*
Lj^-Cj
COMPANY
£££
'dc LCrirXfA^u**
fs^^V
%&at-gs£&&£z
&Jk£Z&££& Deef-
A r
J&ZL
•*•*.
&
IMUML
/,( v/.- r - '&a. r-s/-
Kfrti ^~^q c ^ l _ J
L--SJ---J>
mn.
tl&
At
K\&-
Mt fkzh
H<?c^
-Ml ir
U.^.^^si £ * jltcj
^v^,
Q£UUL&±
ST 4 1 SE/lis/t^
ItefiH**
-ra.v/^ kfl^gfi
fa/t~~&?£
A r-
Gvl&txl S Zfc] ^ oc
vf
PETITION
Ci
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, ACO^A CAT^N^
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
'•"'VMImX ^\Jp^->
OCCUPATION
H$U ?Vw H4 M>C
COMPANY
Lot-
fi.£,f~J
A^-J^^ £a4s?lp
LUZ
/^^ --^?-^ i C n~C/<tf/^'
S&e.
^s/>&
A??jfr&*7 &f&j <Ts fQli /n.ifr. rjFStZ
CSi ^eeVi'r^ V /^^V ft-JriY ./
Mt4JiA
i^v
y^^T
a
ciurc\ v <ys
8)
s
w
c
«
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respeetfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, A Ci -^ rA i ( - 47 ^ jnGt
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
^rfStark-)
OCCUPATION
Driiyar
COMPANY
Ms
PETITION
11
y/
We the undersigned' state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. -
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, ACC-^ 7 ^^ CL4j ^ 1 ^
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
^S^g" ^W^TO «U^
<LL(3^U^
7uZ
f th w 6fe V7 t'^fb
i
*k*^/*
r&zz
10~T (
DHL
J2C
k&i
Eu£L
?r
fifrtiou'i
M,
Zk-cA
d-l.\
A
Mstn (j», fytvua
- ,.> rt r>w — \u> i iiiyu.v
^
4&L*
PETITION
1c
We the undersigned state: We do net understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,yA^C^TA
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
S C--W-/T5S.I «3
NAME
_
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
A
L\ ; .A
2
£l& &±oJ.
aawu9
*£±
rflrfc/// ££2
UA^
-^^i-J^l 'pyiJ fattfr fli/P-^
-rupr
&krl*.l<
St^ ?MM±
£um
&nf
tisi / /f^/£*f/>srS> 9
JMr^/ou^ /Xfrt^itcr'
'M^pUjl
^^f
IMa^u
/V?^>?y^~
JTUl
\aM
St a<&3
pi \ i^L.
ft«\^6-Q*V£fi V*
Li A U
/flc^ /fy^^/a-
j^jMii
V
M£ c *±
M±-
(UJJL
ty/tift^ Ai'jo/
/*a&{l^
/frgjft /VM~
*
Jj/f^yh'^pr
y\<.\&c\*£.A —
gnfc gS>;
r
Pr^tP-
&\TA
£&.
rc<
,&r-Q £gu
6 ^ tt '■■ V
v^V'V^T?
M^m^^v
OirivW
^L-
^%7
iZ±Li
A
<7
Av'/ t.v. Cz>
P^fl-r
^Z
ddi
a^Sffi
i
ft/k/.
PETITION
1i
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, /&&TA 3 Off Ex* W
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
Z%&/#) fJtjit£t*J c$r/]T,£// /V££ /
ucdas
■£.
j^^AfL^, QajA c f «? ti *_ -Z,
<L lp j r^itt4
&y<J
m
£
m
*>? i
i£ Z<d
MO^/
a^,o f-lov-es
Avii
7&N. 7 &U*y_
p6U^^^
\J^^ J&A.IJL.
3
iiL2±*
ty±
6^J^
n
'/,-e )^n
r/->^-_* jj^Q
*£.
A^ s Hfsftrctfw^
A >/' £
I XrJn
trilrt
/OyJ> ' ^ Q;rp A 4 ( C CO;
ij^LL^L
C.lii-
r$ <u g/g^ -/~ <^a*jrAr~c
fn.\,jyr ^,M"T fir
-Cjjv
- Vr f £}~*Jzm -
iAL
M
i'S
m
^/W>9%gw-
/a
' W WCN/1 /
(//fc
"Py4^ c 7 ^<£c
fl£4
iAAL
H&K&LlA
U S Aifi
J&rts^QfbT^
a(T ^ ^r^
4i#i
/ /2/CtTh ' %sv£<
.A/dvc.
K\m'^w
Z^iA
jS5r ^\F,
4^
eai^kiajua
urr>.rirv\
n
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. ,
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, ACC£TAJ»CATErW
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed •
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
yn^T-L*, — i cm<?> ^p ll^juj
P/TU. S^A
<-£&£££
£f\ r*.^ RJlf/n/i <V^W,
W££
JM
fl^jLtUS^t CLtfUL-t UtjAjCttJ QiaJU^A
a
Wr^^t^t
OlA.
£f£-
TZgZS^
Ae
Ml
^^
d/E.
*¥f WW*
*/{Af\^tf?<M
rpmji Qj/tt£y.
c i£t /;
IdJCL
W&/&1,/
$0L
} £MqL
nytfl-
/uirtC
ft A*
&
SZ
&*x
k£3
k££
/)a;x>
£k / ~g
t^a
*. Zte> /c,j ^f
A SI J ^eoL _
jpS ftll^
r
PETITION
7S
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. / .-
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, ACC&Tb^^ MC- Nfcjf
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed •
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
URu£ MrfTt*^ /lutz: A&oeth 6fyorty ffrtfctiT System
4i i /u ed.L
f_ I^Jzl Z"^
*7n/?,£J/s?*\V&g^
WE;
Kdileft
Qzfa fantfe)
'.&4-V MA*j*terf& Gzog^*" ?£E£2£Jl< ^
Mm& sssuiiE.
T- te-J
U^Z-J. /■>* ytj
ft.
£s03fcU
'A
£L
JXje^ 0&&1&.
2 <£&&.
£&&& /?£„■* Odk
32
V/f/ftL
O EM
v v 4 /v.Srv^L
<;v
cm
W>WHA»
tr[ » TL~
hmi£ £=
h<A pcxf < ^tk<
to Wirt
PjgymjL '*-<P#zr^
*3K
&
L*> —-,Ss^,~,
' &£ %f>AM
Whlf*~
C^ftfc CL44U
K~/i/i.
)yj£ C*V> L.//W&
*\
7r
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheel s^^V/*** 2 ^™^
D & ft Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME .
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
Aj *a q
-r**<> A/Ai<.frttf^
lid
i
^a
t±Z£aJ
k/CIU^j
Qtf&f Z&nJT
AV
>r^
M^\
■Ps c<^ e
MjL
SB:
OPtMT/fithfiG&JT
ifrt &xU
mjL
G&zL
>>r^H^\-Vy
nps /It**?
8i^
pgJU3gg,
c rr^
h
rioe-r
-S^l
£zl&:
LsflgfaiJ'**
fiLti* ~£hv±!±
±±Sjl^
J. 7,J , 2jCO^/^ry//ji
'g^uj-
Vj2&zz_
^ISS
7&3&
/T^r^y- ^ejsr/c*
An
fu^TSvpvUce
Gou^ac
mm — m a rr\ ~* mmrtfcgBBM a^wna MlMMBSIH^^
* ..
PETITION
75
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, Ju/vS dcuQfirtQ
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
■OCCUPATION
COMPANY
£M££ UoL/v\£j /\AE<?tf
fa*
4/V
£d^
3^
hU_
R&yrish&zs
1 S5j£
D^>^
^_
ft
<ZrcueAT r^
SEES
ftou J)^UfA
AiftlW &WH SfeMfCfr'A
iferfctLbajeg,
jM&cAd <5\£&rA5
LAuaF
fr mEMTrafyMpeA
%
$fai<rr oxi
tzjclx/ \3Pwge
T^-nvmrj^L
MrR
/^O?
EA&£
^^X^&
CJvrfjhvj iy^rh.
A^
]>/h/gy
m±L.
zsfe
IftytA,
/^>xiv /£U*V*L
2
sx&c& />zr/6c
£&o?%* /Vl
0^ Louj
*TI^ p+t¥i**y
u*&
CM J^TlfhrC^
<5£J?l(IC(r
'\K£-Qp£zfbfL
TpAM2£&£i
Ttc^jbr (~Ani T^oC
tljz£kU2>LL
■reV
-i-Jj-JJtedictea^
saeaafaM .•mi>' << ^- m ' j "
PETITION
7^
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commiss ion's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, JU*v? CaiQr/rHj
D &'M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
6.0>v\as)-C. £<v\ek.Osv^s
Pc/f-Kx. /
ffro - 4AA./T
fejfc/ luff' sm MM£
&AS7PRAJ
£1
B^E-
aiaB
1X.<^
t£_
/ce,
/lAgC(f-
U^'^h
atOjjtAr.
UaI±sJMi=LL*±L
^EZM
^RHEiO
-Tftl/j/vu o
3/^d> A//^_
3E
c/ ^v 7 6'
^
^ ,i>. lAi rt
l<b*~
7&*L*£s^e£L
u;hct
f
r S
fiu/fvS /?#**</
£u*/OS
Dni/><r
bPrT
.jRjyJjSL^.
•7T7/T/V
&E&&&MEER
£7t^y-
^y ^
*■
£^a
^4^
3BE
Wto
^^//^rv
fyj£&L$
crttu/ ^Ws&S
8££d&C£^ m
hf^^ ^lMwvl-
C j T W i~» o £ /Z^v?
3«£,
<XJC~ G&U/to,J
/y^chi -
kfltjfcg cJeri
PETITION
71
y
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. (
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,J uH5 Catering
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
jfu
rs£_r>^j Q -— <?
( A^fo YWU
COMPANY
AA
\\x\riAA
£&&£& A-^T
fitJ^K)
ftn^vagT td£CJ&
TlTP-
£
%
>"5
dVcrJL
AJL
m^, piAiA/Q/ef
LlsM
?T ryir
's>Z*OAyr£
Seciuiry Quit/}
/9}/£ ^e^r /? Q2£
Aam£ ofe/tAf iQV->
llS_a_lIL
fcg-X-fty£> ft^C^CH-c)
j^amP /\e*£*>r
< bO^T\\LX>65^ 4fr^-
SflUrMj^gSrfb g£>
c;.4c
ij^cA
ia
(!0jCt^nJs«^t<! a I
/V2/c
^ZT
SeCCg/Pj £??*Ce^
&/£Af^
5T& Ti'QhJ C K7^Gi \jZtf. MrX('C4(AK tot*
<33&sL
Cj>en2fFrZori
^^L_ /+! ^J/*7 \
( +/s J^^Jr
j&g£
. ty/M/su ttpPki/.*
MamaaanaciaafciBSBi i^j '^ixZttit
PETITION
7K
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,J^HS CaiWH^
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
4^
ctS^jJewz.
'tf^LMSU-s
V^C-NA-y^C^
gf^
Ql
£^
UYvys\^\^J^^p.
i^oc\a3<~&~ U<v\
'*,//<.•->*"
\J^<2^
-r
£orJ 7 , /+jE>jrsH_
Ge>/cf Coa^V~ Couriers
OVXTt^O fcr\?
Meztf* *7 1
£~4$r£#4 Al/Z,L(+/,£S
CtTl ^
A//&'&£r3z£i//c?.
rf>MD (PETPN/ftg--
~Te~UeiCEK.
'f&'mA i r/-&>v«<?K
Cf?teo g&v>
jMh r^tinick!
ZtedimL
~^aP€/?Sl?jrT/p
Ptftuf?
Hl'trKS /)/Z&Z£fG«7
jy hJ^-^\
/? (A (2&*s£±^l T*
<<WA > v
cA/ei,o AUaTT 3>X- /AAA ,
H
t~ Ac^iu^cx
r
4 sy/ilfl
rn^Jh
A*s ' g,
u A I
j#/L c/&tfVc<2S
Cr/^C^
77?fii?,<££
j22££jl*2iL c
JZ-
7?eL-i
&£.
BTiaaPiawamffi^^ataBi^ ^
11
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. ,
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,Ju*S CaUhmq
D &' M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
El£JtL 2l*lmjl
COMPANY
/ML
fULlM^l
f&iQ
t e^
fcJkjt/j, &m-m^-c^=r>
CA<?fr!fi1-
A.fSI
^£&L 0- ?{***
Z css^ g xn^<
\f-fH «
AJitutTVtetJK^
C,
<r.
jjjSJ£2
f ffi. /
>i££\pfa XPrYhrS^
dA-i
Ri4 VJL*
FZggg
osrs
HftjL HAmD/pR
UCP5
T*/£0Z*£
££C
A^A
ML
US AtC
h
i^o-gjgg K /J?-e*^&*c>
*2* o V.r ; a^i
r^-
SZypwrC-y (&*£$&■ &'c<^~.
Cj/7i4/s>>*/7
<L tuUL
( / * / > <S
r*J &U.K- VA&.1 <> % vU 'i^ N'
MiKLU
L/PkU
T
m
r^fcU
OAl
o'-u u gs
>4u< 3>
. I^C^' jfcJWc? y ^M/^i
Pj*A
^2=1
/V^of
g7 ^/Ji^T
■^^/U^/-/(
&&&L
<a*
t/ty%2_
&fefl S^*+4£.
^Lfi^l/C^:
ftdtAnC
2*J4 1 C
'/I I
A-h
^
^■4,1 riMv"
Hh-
_at^j±±^_
^, ;] Au^uf/~
^^^^■'^"^^^^^^•^^■fca^^^^
PETITION
^0
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,J^** Wfrr^j
D X M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
£U^« m^-H"^
OCCUPATION
ess.
COMPANY
QBJL&i
y-^yrc CKx^fft^
/W-Q 1 '^ AidUN^T
£SL
I ■ 6frCT P<W^
S\A(Yuen
tx[&?c0, (KroOecnc^
$_■ Sotw^J
&n£l(nq OA)0£-gpo-Q
\C'v 1\,3(j-
4.
<^-^dUA^\e-lcJ
<A
^ v o e vcJ
y^s^
3:
TuEuE^.
A^ce?-kc^0. IV^ui-
; ^ (
a /)e> litems
I C^rV
dbt
a<n
£l
H QjJMJ {&&%&&> Da i 1 ^ r
AUti'V^^Cs r-
?-LOlAg ^Vk Pfrgi c,hp~
^,r^/ *2hx£u£
v^
". 3\-*r>fecti,
r.<- /<a/_^
toiy roju^
SFJAJ.D
1
<^ AAA
e
Dt/1 gJX
Zrswi^
z
^.'WKST^
/^ta
^03—
*A>\VU-
j3l
.fijrjc
&L^C£
.&
V/i/^g
5^SS ^fe£ZZ£L
S S a E s ZZ
rSfreSa s\/a .r
JCl
oi&ss
csSf <T
rn, -vyr
,L \J( yV
.<7*<x* sT^^
J2cul
^hza^m Ar
-»*r
Qm (l
AM
J /^//f
.K^M^^ftP Qjrt-L.
fh)AJ CM-M/^/<L
?osr^- sw<>
FKvM Sqv4,
^Tofl g J- ^£f ^
)<?s*-\
UOfiREHfiL&g'
77C
V-hA
w_
- KprV^
Kk^KL
44^
B&i»SgBMa«8itfMMgiSa5ttgJ^^
V
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that K itchen -on -Wheels, Jun S O^ttrnn^
D b M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
x<£
ski
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
RlXCM^R)\/[
^Ofc
3ft£G u\\vn
COG
Sg/WL <U££K
/hr?ePjMt) .A>e.Uri&
s£j^f>
AJiOA
)qtj A£w\StR*&^^
^Q^^^Sl/C'
"\
N(,,A-
x& -^^a£\ )0^c£- utuB^uc^
^cCTj'^Z AOWQiO
faf iRnhscfj
j-^uc £ Qj-f /;-**-
&lt f //i~*Z/Q £J
ruiA-N/ 1
gui&liLh
v
'Af/' /)*u
/^J#&<
/?/&*#*-<
^W /£*??
fwULerf l/m&C^rrL.
t-/AT£ SEa-\/) c e~r^c >4 .
/<c/7~l^/Z ^■U'y* : 7~7c=>*J
f^^Uj/^i^^i
ij g } &£z
*1 Sf*<~{K«) *4
'-&/£ O-fl usMfi eA 6^t\
&££JL
/4y?(3/^/C/>A, /*s'/lL/A-?5
c_v>-^r ^?>^a,Vxs*^*s
y/- y jt4
s
«a*u
sum. — (- *> . ^-vvi
^5
C&A^
: p n zr'<rx?~<>-ss
u
5
<-f-
*n
;&^>/ w\\j\s
^zS
a
rtJJ~>/7^
i ^vV-rV
J^
Te<U
Ra^^v L&g2^ ■
r?^ A^U.
fit
r t K'
i^T^
e/ Stcrtf-k
JZUt &L
m
£&&&
s
^
VZ. s — 7*77*
</
%
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, dUh/'s CfiT£/?/NQ-
D &, M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME OCCUPATION COMPANY
12 Oh 'Hot/? QUIi/E/Z ^.iR pl-esU- D-oc/cj^g
?J
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,^^ C/PT£~^ / /V G~
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
{JQss^t/ 9~£<-i~rT~) Llk0US'/r>(Z ?x.f</t?<.
tvc £J>JU JtV, i fjfl./\ oMJWvJfrU
/Lfcfc^/z^rfeO L-/A-ao'f > /«j- ls -
'•IMu^ '^>ti^^^
7fl.\\<&-
ArV'OC, tx&i? c ii^O'
Licit/ /£f££
fttjexi/iSoA
UP
n
£££. SlLsltkA
I JA-JOJA j
Rf\M P <frO\C6 r
rcfe^-,
8\z
g£fc*P '.C^£jy/C€-
VJ 0/11
}-) vbli Ei i
CDKTiO^Jp.^
cntc EIZEMI
. Ve^U & UZ3lvPZ\h> ° htf tvL<^^ P££j/± At(cc</)7E D ^jjdl
-^VH) ^Urn I I tamp Gou
tO l'P"\
X-%U ~Tc
U^VO'M QUZJLc
Dafi/£x-na:
rs
P&L&Z -T2&&
Bd
i/e.<
fea /iJ-r Zjszjsffa
D£JI/£X_
S.T.A.
vWJ^
i KA
iy^x
PETITION
?
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. ,
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, JVNS C#T£RlNCr
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
M<e/:tnf»(C
A.fi gjg&d&k
ra
*<L
/faJL^djtfA,
tA/*
-tUA>?HdU*.
'J^i^e* (L&t,
r^sr&tH
I
£2L
u7&
;7^L mC£j WSPS
7~<e* w4 £<»J-,
a
&
£_ y$V/C
fiirfjL^
/>3
Mj^£J£jf^L £
fY\E_C(jArJ, C C
•1**-/
y&
iXfjLi C
L^dZ/ ZE fl
Zi^aSS/XMeS- IMj&gk
ttX.
^-/* ,'.■/*
/■
'4*7 <S
. &■/?** <y</pv &
^^.as-> £t>^0~,jf'Q^ /s\r 7"-
-%t\\&
^
fl)£3oz7 tTXi£c
jJjHTg
iPAnyJr/L
J ^f!J)S}j
J^uA
J*./2
72. *£1 \t£
Vfflh
/Lai C'/ //j.^Jt^
rMUiifMDlLf<
USPS
'^jLtdL-J^L
~S*ri>3^
i •,!,,/ t-m
^ ^zfg^Z
/k*?^
tyteudtUtiTAdl
_ ^3v/g£^52w^£^
"7L.Hie.4~ toco/ ef
b^ b&H& B
3V0 sm:
^dSIS3l
fajJJMXJtrfl££.
■-•.ifii^.sa^iv-cli
MjaBag&s a^Saaaa^gaiiiS
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, \iUNS CflJERlNCr
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
U^pl^Hi-
COMPANY
/?;< *0 hre. 'cl^rm '■). ■ c<s ~Tn nffer
Q-y
iZ^MMkYTk.CiH^Jl'
Ls±M±£l
Dft£ lW&>7
VeoF>
gy^ S/s.
Po^f* ft^Ci- PfrLWtf/S/ 1
AJlOft
cSs &*£**£
^P, D - 'NAS-U'm.^KL
<?V^-*«6s.
k J
*'C
U/«^</ d *. /L^
Ra^h \2Xr7''>)
A-&~-A
jyfi i /> a
B A P. r ^
C * 1 ts IS
gosj: nA"/r
AtRcp&FT >*fcA//^,
'GAL-
UOA
fl/f 7?'«:k H#
SO/?/UizK-
££T££steL*Z£&
' r,
\ -■(. 'J. >-ih I '
A±
P&f?A*J<Xt-Q(Ct
t^J-C
1 K\C SH^ffl/W
<2tfM&
\-WnV=y\\ ^Q oC _\-\-
- Reo .fe-gxfa.
■fSf
l^c\<f)^^
asx
g,W Sfl&fc
tifii&g&i
3^
S.\t>or~^
fW^^cV
1
:13fe
r-5^
_4i«
'ar a ?s* 5!t *^' g *^^»^^'»'-^' ii *^
%
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, dl/NS CATERING
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
A
c*
~7<'£i--*c?? Ct f.&n-^t
w
fcZ-liz'o C^aCccT'
CA-sr&K."
~~ o sV-
j4,^\ Crr vj >J
g-A ^ C *-■ t-v-^\ ^^ j^js ^
O fO \
^)/U'-t: *)
AAiJ] LL
<ji±<i-.
l<-^ llzrfrckjUi
5Z 7
7^
VtLTA-
nf t & fi
n~J clML^
" y^T^S £^&£/oc
6 ^
0{sis*-<£
'tftpi McQJTu-
r c^S
tif<4
-^
/-H^-
Ws£f£&it-&
-*"'
- /
£^7i:
ppN»fii r^i^soi'L
Rfirp sifc'J'ci-
VNrr?D
fcvjfjj VbrkiUZu .
^W'-y.JUb'.i /<:'•' i CJt
/A
!(14)\l ,
L'2*
I f
Zt^^T^i^
csA
Co^J l /AJtT/TfiL ft <fj l ///a;
£
( «-o
^a^, ? ,1s so c
zT
<l*nfif
AJL
fo-tp
AJOO
Sf*
vc- L
H ^ S
AJ^
£E& fcmtr/s
QHE££
frneLf^,&'/>>/t
/?*/!/£*
vu&cc
■Ws^'frT*--
Vfl
-^ Cvi^S
frVvNj*.
j^r,V-lj
Q4-
v/f
/
A^/7 A/t*^
P£JV£A
KC 3YP
- fflAjft 6<Q>A<rfl
h<?>vee.
TKJT.CfcvfftulC
i Txrv*~ a*** aawMtiaaca r^ M £^^-nr±amfi***txi:*L^~''*^^i«^**s&iK*&^^ rag>faEy5s»»*?^u^^^^v^^
PETITI
«1
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on-Wheels,*/^^ C#3E£IN<t
D &' M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
3' lihU r
1 (jenJj^JL^o
CMtn A<,uJ-~
g£bjg| -(m\i^^(
^5
}^n
\^'S fr~r^'>-~ ;s?
£lsA
Pis LLq
^
~< ? g -'
W/ 3&r7&
JfSA-
2j£.
c^AZCfe z:ulx?ki£-
M<^?</C4*UA
. &<&//< ,<*/
/>'%?***-
^3^Z2^A
^
^fjfe
/->Aii^ — r?-Oi
:fe^^
<^~r
tffjtiCTiL LC£r>
?> i^W,
&2&£mM/&il
WCc/fWC
c/ t
tf /ret
A^gC ^^a.C-
CtnA'J
Li k,;. A
HftrUttA^
r\i/UX, <& £/tm & C-iTT?
klgA&i ArU
Wj
i.* ^i^*fT .^ --*-u— ». jn,-.u.^j^i-^ i,v«n aa aaiaia
Bj*r,i ^»iw3y>s«fe^.^3Byjiai;^ji
tt
* . PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, dUNS C-ftTB^ihlQr
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
WM (//<< O&feimt.
c<7 A/<£ /n£yc*ATrL.
f.l-fU-t-.
OmsnJiK
*/.L,'t*st<\
^tfMMM M\M&
7~1
5£H%^6
6&isrflS ^t&/M&t/ftl
Ji?eTtJc4<J/l'< l '"^ s
m
Pn£jUA£r tft&MU/c_
<fonrk 7/u f/kSor
f/kJi
v^
^o.^ rJ
K^-q-\-7\M I C
*-^W < A/-^T
pai
X
(^tcvc
*Sg>^AA-t^
i^OOVflOff
' i^-CK/ L ■ ft ^<*ldnr \\jr-
grop^^A^r
Q.CL'bF
' y i 51 < * * /r>f • j I /o
CT^jj.u lnj~tv<* )< cK
i£
l<^(3 / / a j
>t
Hf^t V-"-P<
; ;iut vl^va^fe ^^^^jj^^S
'. G-lruSfhlfc
Heo/ici^ic
v^.^^c^r^
M
%Z?*i£e biff;*
<.A~jc/r
(j. &,~-
>/sQ>
dSE^
4flL^
«
n> f-y £jL£jll&*£.
W ^ m
7 a n- U
IVT4.
,/foCAim
Ml
hf'i
.->>/*•
aJ 7, £ Mj^</ 4
iS'S-/>.A.
jyU\ IkaAiJjUf
j. iJufhv)^ 5/h^JL
£LL
g £l(£<M\ m
_^>
»-. J c=«^^^«^ij.ii.2«.«jM«rca^iMig^^
*?
1 PETITION • -
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,<M/£ Cfi T£ fclNQ-
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
7
A VP> /JET) K3
OCCUPATION
COMPANY
uJ^U
^u*.~Z
j ve ifo
61A-C
£AMP
HAL-
OcO
dLL
t\Mc&
ULfru
tCisT}
U-
UAS^
(fa'rt
VSPZ
P"
"Yvjl^oK
.^Wv \-a-< ^JL.^yr- ^ux
**?*%&
Jg&hzZ*
'*SZ-
7 ^fyjUj* a I—
S^-UfflT^fl-A/gL,
//A
JPZ
-AD.hJJh
LjL
ULUX JlA
U2J*
A\<L&
fiawp tStk&mk
WM^&
&£
Ls^_^X
C'-ar^p H^rvilw^
is-fl
coirf** i<t/irtw&>
>/£j&fZ-
T<
-^ t/W . \
CcrST
_ -Ufrk y "o~»
pA*Pk6&'
Co
c
Ui via gjj f W i
TiT i\ . ItH /
..^^^^T^^i-^^-^^H-t^fi^ ^^ ^^a- ^ -^jr^^
PETITION
1<>
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
j/h/e
OCCUPATION
VXj
COMPANY
^^<^^c^^
u£L
f^^T^p-z^^e^^^^^
x^^rz
7h?[aj& "fisSzESi
-jyLUjcJL tfLw^Qsu
xJl
r£xT
HE:£l
/>rj- f a &dcz c
fx f-r :
/!^{/& z
%k fi^co.
£>Ji
Fh=r f
^Wyi
//
'P'.S/pOL'JCtn ^nuj^
/$+jL A;r Fr-
MlM&
<±+£
&&JL
a s d
,?v <r
PETITION
H»".'>
'2
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
DiH Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
ll
NAME
OCCUPATION
8, R De^Ko
fo- fc.sVW, f 5 '
ti-
lt- $%&*/<
RAP
/'■■
ftp
flip
o. p
COMPANY
7v- ■
-j-v*-' rV
/.
///;
7k"d
ftofi-
PETITION
^V >
^
2
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
I. *! ■ l/ilulm
OCCUPATION
%\\ Co
« rvV S
8. »R D£mk
U Ci (<
ASP
u VVA
COMPANY
l\—
\ J
a r
7v. ■•■
TuJ A
"J-vaJ rV
"7 ^ -
PETITION
l V
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
2
OCCUPATION
NAME
'l> 4>*taJ»4UiA.H*dkL&
8. ft D£mK
(o- £.s"
2. Mr V V 3\l^^V
/HP.
Of
COMPANY
•j-vA-' rV
PETITION
{JW
^<
•i- \
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D 4 M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
NAME
OCCUPATION
I' Ge/MfULn A . W *}tl /--
^«*F: K5.P
fo- ?..SV^ :
ft e<^°-*;c
iesP
£sp
COMPANY
A
/<-//
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
93
NAME
OCCUPATION
V\c*mJ &vy^W <MfcJ^~
COMPANY
COfd'Cv&^Atde.
#2Z
fay /jQzje.&i
&22E ,.
/g> ST4 c <g>7/^ <~f£.£
^M^b
//
f
//
//
Po c rAi c-npurttk
<£/v,
S*rO
PETITION
We the undersigned state: We do not understand the
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering
trucks from their present locations and to revoke
their permits, as their services are greatly needed.
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed
to continue business in their same locations.
n
ftvM
OCCUPATION
tAflcU.'Mi^
COMPANY
nM* ■ tyP
Em
t Ajr9>H. u. *
i±B±
±t&
H
■■' I- i (.
Osb
/K4<rv/A'( s-f
UA.l_
ttt fro d a&EL
Ujj
MncUnv-T
UAU
^g^*^r
j&2&i4&*z£ z£
^r^t
'' *<p^ /?&&.
<fZ>-ttL<*e£ t ~.
/ r
^ts?
* //>
■//,
//
o&£&Zl$£
U
<vt/t
SL
g^^ s
H.efc.j^i n >c PM,
Zi
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
JUL 2 8 1988
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARV
JUNE 21, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
June 21 , 1988
CALENDAR
AGENDA
SECTION
ITEM
TITLE
A.
CALL TO ORDER:
B.
ROLL CALL:
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
May 17, 1988
88-0099
D.
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Resolution of Appreciation for
Donald 3. Garibaldi
Boarding Area 'E' Sublease
Protest
3-4
4-5
POLICY:
Support of AB4201
88-0100
POLICY:
Establishment of Bureau of
Property Management
5-0101
G.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Adoption of Fiscal Year 1988/89
Rates & Charges
Award of Contract No. 1560:
Reconstruct Airfield Perimeter
Dike - North Side
Airport Improvement Program
(A. I. P. No. 9)
88-0102
88-0103
6
6-7
7
CONSEN T CALENDAR o F ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
6. Retirement Resolution:
Robert Bracco
7. Retiiement Resolution:
Aige erta F. Wiley
88-0104
88-0105
8. Retirement Resolution:
John Cuenl las 88-0106
9. Settlement of Construction
Claims 88-0107
10. Bid Call : Contract No. 2044:
International & North Terminal
Underground Tank Replacement 88-0108
11. Approval of Shuttle Bus Service
Agreement No. 68252 - Modification
No. 5 88-0109
PUBLIC HEARING:
12. Proposed Public Parking Rate
Increase 8
J. NEW BUSINESS: 8
K. CORRESPONDENCE: 8
L. CLOSED SESSION: 3
M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO
CLOSED SESSION:
Minutes, June 21 . 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
8:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present: Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Don Richards Stephens arrived at 9:15
AM
CLOSED SESSION:
The meeting recessed at 8:03 AM to go into closed session and reconvened
at 9:00 AM.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 17, 1988 were adopted by order
of the Commission President.
No. 88-0099
D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Fleishell presented Airports General Counsel Donald J.
Garibaldi with a resolution, introduced by Assemblyman John Burton and
unanir- -ly adopted by the State Assembly, commemorating his 30 years of
distingu shed service in the City Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Fleishell asked, at Commissioner Goosby's request, that a
similar resolution be prepared by staff and adopted at the next Commission
meeting .
Mi notes. June 21 , 1988, Page 3
Commissioner Fleishell requested that the contents of the State Assembly
resolution be made a part of the minutes. See attached.
Commissioner Bernstein granted Mr. Briant Chun-Hoon's request to address
the Commission on Boarding Area 'E'.
Mr. Chun-Hoon told the Commission that his complaint was about the
approval of the Duty Free Shoppers Boarding Area 'E' MBW/WBE subcontract.
He told the Commission that he was a serious MBE applicant for the
subcontract and he was not notified of the Commission's meeting and agenda
of June 7, 1988 when the Commission approved the subcontract. He claimed
that Duty Free Stoppers selection of the subcontractor showed racial bias
and that his allegation was based on close examination of political events
surrounding the execution of the project and actual selection process as
well as the MBE applicant awarded the subcontract.
Mr. Chun-Hoon said that he has consulted legal counsel on this matter and
he believes that his complaint and documentation have legal merit. He
asked that the Airports Commission call upon the Human Rights Commission
to act as an impartial third party to investigate his complaints. Should
HRC corroborate his complaint he said that he would request that the
Airports Commission consider reversing its approval of the subcontract
until he can negotiate an equitable settlement with the parties involved.
Mr. Chun-Hoon told the Commission that this subcontract was offered to any
qualified MBE/WBE. He contended that Duty Free Shoppers intended to and
did give preference to black MBEs/WBEs. He said that the basis for his
complaint was threefold: Political bias, i.e. this subcontract was
conceived from the settlement between Duty Free Shoppers and the parties
which brought discrimination charges against them. The second point is
that the selection process could not have produced an impartially chosen
qualified applicant. Specifically, after applicants had completed only
one questionaire and had only one interview the subcontractor was chosen
by a single Duty Free official. He said that Duty Free did not request
any verifications nor were any references contacted. Mr. Chun-Hoon also
told the Commission that a business plan was not required, no income tax
returns were requested, there were no written evaluations by the
interviewer and the selection process phases were untimely and unclear.
Mr. Chun-Hoon's final point was that an investigation of the past events
surrounding the MBE awarded this subcontract would reveal that the
application for this project was not coincidental. He said that this was
the second time around for this MBE firm at the Airport.
Mr. Chun-Hoon concluded by saying that he hoped that the Airports
Commission would evaluate his complaint and act on it as soon as possible.
Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Garibaldi if the Commission should
comment on Mr. Chun-Hoon's statements.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that in light of the fact that Mr. Chun-Hoon has
contacted legal counsel and possibly contemplating legal action he
recommended that it be left to the staff to deal with at this point. He
said that Mr. Chun-Hoon has direct access to the Human Rights Commission
if he wis' to ta^e the matte*- up with them. This is not a matter in
which the Cc mission can become involved. He said that the Commission's
only role is to approve or disapprove a subtenant.
Commissioner Fleishell remarked that a number of Mr. Chun-Hoon's
statements were inaccurate and he did not want to see him move ahead and
spend a lot of money needlessly.
Minutes, June 21 , 1988, Page 4
Mr. Garibaldi agreed that there were a number of misstatements.
Commissioner Fleishell told Mr. Chun-Hoon that since this contract was
awarded to Duty Free Shoppers with no requirement for minority
participation, Duty Free Shoppers could chose anyone they wanted. The
only participation the Airports Commission had under the agreement was to
consent to the new sublessee; it had no involvement in the actual
selection process. He told Mr. Chun-Hoon that if he had any quarrell it
was with the Human Rights Commission for not notifying him, although he
was not certain that HRC had that responsibility either.
Mr. Chun-Hoon asked how Duty Free could discriminate or show preference
towards a particular group if the offering was made to MBEs/WBEs at
large. How can Duty Free give preference or show bias when the entire
concept of the MBE/WBE prog'am is to get away from discrimination.
Commissioner Fleishell recommended that Mr. Chun-Hoon follow his
attorney's advice.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, commented that with the Boarding Area
'E' contract the Commission attempted to follow what has been a
traditional effort on the part of the Airport, i.e. to establish a goal
for minority participation. Since HRC did not permit that concept with
this contract the bid went out without any requirement for minority
participation. Therefore, this contract went out as a standard Airport
bid for which Duty Free was the successful bidder. He said that as a
business matter, Duty Free's election to secure a subtenant is within
their business right. The Airport's Commission, as is standard in all of
its obligations, reserves the right of approval but cannot unreasonably
withhold its approval in these matters. He wanted to assure the public
that this was not the principal concessionaire concept traditionally used
at the Airport. He told Mr. Chun-Hoon that if his legal counsel wished to
discuss this matter with him or Mr. Garibaldi they would be happy to share
this information with him.
Mr. Chun-Hoon concluded by saying that it should be stated on the offering
circular as such.
POLICY:
Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted.
1 . Support of AB4201
No. 88-0100 Resolution urging support of AB4201 .
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this resolution supports AB4201
or any successor resolution that may arise. It specifically speaks
to stress induced workers compensation claims filed because of
personnel actions, i.e. job evaluations, disciplinary actions,
demotions, etc. His recommendation is clearly stated in the
resolution and he asked the Commission for its support.
Commissi^ ■ Fleishell said that merely sending resolutions to the
State legi'. .ature i a r e i v accomplished anything other than fattening
the bill file. He said that a letter should be directed to the
appropriate Mayor's Office employee requesting that contact be made
with the City's lobbyist in Sacramento on this issue. Further, the
Airport should be notified of any pending action on the bill prio*' to
the hearing, not after.
Minute.. June 21 , 1988, Page 5
F. POLICY:
Item No. 2 was unanimously adopted. Although not present for discussion
of this item. Commissioner Stephens arrived at the call of the vote and
did participate in the action.
2. Establishment of Bureau of Property Management
No. 88-0101
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this is a policy issue. He said
that property management was a fairly non-existent function at
airports prior to 1979. The Airports Commission has, in great
measure, pioneered the concept of property development and retail
concession development at airports. This concept is not confined to
retail and cuts across all lines at the Airport. He felt that since
it is a much broader discipline it should be afforded the proper
importance at the Airport and be positioned to cut across all of the
organizational lines. He urged the Commission's approval.
Commissioner Flei shell hoped that the search encompassed everyone who
is qualified.
Commissioner Stephens joined the meeting at this point and was asked
by Commissioner Flei she 1 1 if he had any objection to the establish-
ment of a Bureau of Property Management.
Commissioner Stephens responded that he did not think so.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Items 3 and 4 were unanimously adopted. Item No. 5 was removed from the
calendar.
3. Adoption of Fiscal Year 1988/89 Rates & Charges
No. 88-0102 Resolution authorizing the establish-
ment of (1) terminal rental rates, and
(2) commercial and general aviation
landing fee rates for Fiscal Year
1988/89 and beyond. Resolution also
authorizes a $6,000,000 supplemental
appropriation from unappropriated
surplus to the operating fund, as
required by the Lease and Use
Agreement .
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that having been reviewed by the
airlines the rates and charges were brought before the Commission at
the last meeting in the form of a public hearing. He reminded the
Commission thi' there was no public comment at the public hearing.
He recommended ipproval of tho item.
Award of Contract No. 1560
Reconstruct Airfield Perimeter Dike - North Side
Minutes, June 21 , 1988. Page 6
No. 88-0103 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1560
to Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc.
in the amount of $494,025.00.
5. Airport Improvement Program (A.I. P. No. 9)
Resolution approving Project
Application for A. I. P. Fund of
$26 . 9-mi 1 1 ion and requesting the Board
of Supervisors to authorize filing of
Project Application and acceptance of
the resulting grant offer.
H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Items 6 through 11 were unanimously adopted.
6. Retirement Resolution: Robert Bracco
No. 88-0104
7. Retirement Resolution: Algeretta F. Hi ley
No. 88-0105
8. Retirement Resolution: John Cuenllas
No. 88-0106
9. Settlement of Construction Claims
No. 88-0107
10. Bid Call : Contract No. 2044
International and North Terminal Underground Tank Replacement
No. 88-0108 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 2044 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
1 1 . Approval of Shut . Bus Service Agreement No. 682 5^
Modification No. 5
No. 88-0109
Minutes, June 21 , 1988, Page 7
I. PUBLIC HEARING:
The public hearing was convened at 9:17 AM and was declared closed at 9:20
AM, there being no public comment.
12. Proposed Public Parking Rate Increase
Hearing regarding proposed increase in
public parking rates in the garage and
Lot 'D'.
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, reminded
the Commission that the Airport has been encouraged to develop
further concession revenue for the benefit of the Airport as well as
for the benefit of the City. The first of these is ar increase in
parking rates. She told the Commission that parking rates have not
increased in approximately three years. She said that the daily
garage rate was lowered to $11 a couple of years ago and was asking
that the daily rate be increased to $13 along with an accompanying
rate increase from $7 to $8 in the long term lot. She said that
since the rate for the first two hours in the garage will not go up
she did not feel that this will have any significant impact on road-
way congestion, i.e. patrons who normally use the garage for short
periods of time will continue to do so. After looking at rates for
downtown City and private garages staff feels that these rates will
sti 1 1 be reasonable.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked from what amount was it reduced to $11.
Mr. Turpen responded that it was reduced from $12.
Mr. Turpen said that this item will be brought back to the Commission
for approval at the next meeting.
Commissioner Fleishell recommended tying the Airport's rates to
whatever rates the Mayor's Office decides to put on the downtown
garages.
Mr. Turpen thought Commissioner Fleishell 's idea had merit and said
that staff would take a look at it and possibly incorporate it into
the resolution.
J. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
K. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission
Minutes. June 21 , 1988, Page 8
M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM to go into closed session.
'Jaan Caramatti
Commission Secretary
Minutes, June 21 , 1988, Page 9
failuttmt
By the Honorable John Burton
Sixteenth Assembly District; Relative to commending
DON GARIBALDI
WHEREAS, Don Garibaldi is celebrating 30 years of continuous service in the City
Attorney's office in the City and County of San Francisco, and, in recognition of this
milestone, he is deserving of special honors and highest commendations; and
WHEREAS, A native of San Francisco, Mr. Garibaldi was raised in North Beach,
graduated from Saint Ignatius High School, earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in English cum
laude from the University of San Francisco, and his Juris Doctorate degree from its law
school; and
WHEREAS, Following his graduation from law school, he served his country in the
United States as a yeoman in the Pacific Fleet, later served in the office of the commander in
San Diego, and, after his active service, joined the Law Office of Joseph L. Alioto; and
WHEREAS, In 1958, he began his career with the City Attorney's Office in the City and
County of San Francisco as a Deputy City Attorney, and, in 1962, he was assigned to the
Council of the Retirement Board; and
WHEREAS, In 1969, his office was relocated from City Hall, thus it became one of the
first satellite offices of the City Attorne), and, in 1978, he was named Airports General
Counsel; and
WHEREAS, As a youth, Mr. Garibaldi was a member of The Salesian Boys Club, which as
an adult he has served as a 25-year member of the board of directors; and
WHEREAS, Don Garibaldi's outstanding abilities and effective public service have earned
for him the high esteem of his peers and the public alike, and it is appropriate that his
impressive record of achievements be acknowledged and applauded; now, therefore, be il
RESOLVED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOHN BURTON, That he takes great pleasure in
congratulating Dor Garibaldi for his 30 years of continuous service in the City Attorney's
Office in the Cil> and County of San Francisco, commends, his distinguished and faithful
service to the people of San Francisco, and conveys to him best wishes for continued success
in the future; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a suitably prepared copy of this resolution be transmitted to Don
Garibaldi.
Members Resolution No. 1322
Dated: June 8, 1988
Signed
Ycr^^< X /^L^^5^ ^
Honorable John Burton
16th AssembU District
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
AUG 2 91383
SaN kkancisco
M « <«• in • IRRAPV
JULY 19, 19 88
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
cf the v : nLte;
A : "ports Commi ssion
July 19, 1983
CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION
SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE
A. CALL TO ORDER: 4
B. ROLL CALL: 4
C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meetings of
June 7, 1988 and, 88-0113
June 21 , 1988 88-0114 4
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 4
E. SPECIAL ITEM:
1. Commendation f cr Donald J.
Garibaldi , Esq. for 30 Years
of Legal Service to the City
and County of San Francisco 88-0115 5
F. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
2. Status Report on the Proposed
Extension of BART to .San
Francisco International
Airport 5-5
G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 6
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
3. Public Parking Rate Increase 88-0116 6
4. Authorization to Conduct a
Pre-Bid Conference for
California Products Shop 88-C117 6
5. Authorization to Conduct a
Pre -5 i J Conference for Nortn
Terminal "Hub" Princioal
Concession Lease for Retail
Merchandising Sales 88-C118 6-7
6. Resolution Approving North
Terminal "Hub" Sublease 83-0119 7
7. Airport Improvement Prcg r am
(A. I. P.) No. 9 88-0120 7
8. DHL Application/Recommendation
for Variance 88-0121 7-8
9. Publication of Ten-Year Airport
Commemorative Repor: 8-10
I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRARIVE MATTERS:
10. Retirement Resolution:
Benjamin E. Binkley 88-0122 10
11. Resolution Setting Maximum Fees
for Feasibility Consultant
Services 88-0123 10
12. Resolution Authorizing Assignment
of South Terminal Flower Snop
Sublease 88-0124 10
13. Awa j of Professional Services
Agreement: Preparation of Computer-
Generated Diag-am and Fault
Analysis of AirDort Electrical
Distribution System to United
Engineering Technology, Inc. 88-0125 10
14. Award of Contract No. 2043:
Removal and Disposal of Material
Adjacent to Taxiway 'L' 88-0126 10
15. Award o f Contract No. 2023A-R:
Traffic Barriers - Two Airport
Guard Shelters 88-0127 11
16. Bid Call : Contract No. 1665 -
Boarding Area 'B', Pier F-F -
Installation of 10-Inch Water-
Main " 11
17. Bid Call - Contract No. 988:
Remodel Engineering Building and
Heating, Ventilating, and Air
Conditioning System 88-0123 11
18. Travel/Training - FY 1988/89 88-0128 11-12
J. PUBLIC HEARING:
19. Increase in Vale 1 : Parking Rates 12
K. NEW BUSINESS: 12
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 2
L.
CORRESPONDED
N.
nD;Cl = v.<EN T TO GO INTC
CLOSED SESSION:
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 3
M i n c t e s
C f the
Airports Commission Meeting
July 19, 1985
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco. Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present
Absent:
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougaraki s
Don Richards Stephens
Morris Bernstein, President
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of the
Commission Vice President.
No. 88-0113
No. 88-0114
June 7, 19.
June 21,1
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti,
Commission Secretary, announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0110 regarding the settlement of a
litigated claim; 88-0111, modification
no. 2 to professional services agree-
ment with Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus,
Vlahos and Rudy to increase compensa-
tion payable by $200,000; and 88-0112,
authorizing Director to execute agree-
ment with the law firm of Arnelle and
Hastie at a cost not to exceed
$100,000 at the closed session of Jjne
21, 1988.
Minutes, July 19, 1
Page 4
SPECIAL ITEM:
Ite~ '.;. i was unanimously adcctec.
i. Cor r -r":at ; o' 1 for Donald J. Garibaldi. Es;
Se''.i:e tc the C "■ t ■» anc County of San Francisco
No. 88-0115
Commissioner F 1 e i she 1 1 said that Mr. Garibaldi has worked with ea:~
member of the Commission and from his perspective it has always bee-
a pleasure to do business with him. Commissioner F 1 ei she 1 1 aske:
that the resolution be framed appropriately and presented to Mr.
Garibaldi .
F. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
Status Report on the Proposed Extension of BART to San Francisco
Internationa 1 Airport
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that this item
was in response to a request that staff chronicle the history and
background surrounding this issue as well as some of the pros ar;
cons which relate to the various views being expressed, i.e. a toest
of Bayshore alternative ve"sus a terminal alternative for BART. He
said "tnat staff will continue to monitor this situation and keep the
Commi ssion updated .
Commissioner Fleishell said tnat he hoped the monitoring included an
active participation in any of the decisions being made on locations.
Comrr,i ssioner Goosby commented that the report mentioned tunneling
under filled land and asked if that procedure might not put some of
the buildings and construction in the Airport in jeopardy. He asked
if tne team of engineers and soil experts who must have provided the
original recommendation for a projected tunnel entry into the Airport
considered this possibility.
Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Building and Construction,
said that the conclusion was that it would be possible but rather
expensive and that is why a trace was left for future tunneling.
Commissioner Goosby said tnat in other words it was seen as an
expense but no mention to potential damage to the buildings was made.
Mr. Yuen responded that if enough money is spent to do the tunnel
right the building would not be damaged and that is why the potential
for a tunnel was created.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that when the piles for the garage
we-e drilled water seeped through, resulting in the lower level
roadway dropping eight inches.
Mr. Turpen agree H f ^ 3 t this was just a matter of time and mone\ .
Commissioner Tsougaakis assumed tnat the $300-million difference was
to shore up the area in order to build the tunnel.
Mr. Turpen sa<d that staff will actively participate with anv
decision-making bodj, and he will forward to the Comirissior. a list of
Minutes. July 19, 1988, Page 5
organizations that ~ ; :'-t be currer.tlv involved rfith : Hi s issue.
Commissioner Gocscj, as>e: where tne tracks will be bui : t.
Mr. Turpen responded that the west side of the West of Bayshore
property is being considered.
Comni ssioner- Goosb) thought that SP ' s tracks were further west.
Mr. Turpen responded that Southern Pacific's tracks swing down a Ton
the westerly boundary of the Airport's 180 acres and then go intc
Mi 1 1 brae and on down the Peninsula. He said that they actually run
about two blocks east of El Camino as they come through Mi librae.
G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners
ITEMS RELATING TC ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS 8- MAINTENANCE:
Items 3 through 8 were unanimously adopted by the Commission. No acticr
was taken on item no. 9.
3. Public Parking Rate Incease
No. 88-0116 Resolution regarding proposed increase
in Public Parking Rates in the Garage
and Lot D.
4. Authorization to Conduct a P^e-Bi d Conference for Califc-nia Product'
Shop
No. 88-0117
5. Authorization to Conduct A Pre-Bid Conference for North Terminal
"Hub" Principal Concession Lease for Retail Merchandising Sales
Mr. Turpen said that the jewelry shop will be replaced with a sports
shop.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he hoped staff was strengthening our
sublease language so that when a subtenant gets into financial
difficulty action is take" immediately rather than waiting until it
becomes a crisis. He said that minority concessionaires are not
being helped by allowing them to slip deeper and deeper into debt.
jmmi ssioner Stephens a ed who p-eparis the Airport's commercial
leases .
Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport General Counsel and property
management staff prepare them.
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 6
Commissioner Stephens sa ; d tnat commercial leases ana their terms
chance dramatically all of the time a~c staff should think abC'jt
hiring a law firm with a strong real estate department, like Morrison
and Foerster, to review our leases, he said that the law firm should
provide us with the state of the art in lease clauses and tenant pays
Mr. Turpen agreed with Commissioner Stephens.
Resolution Approving North Terminal "Hub" Sublease
No. 88-0119 Resolution approving the sublease of
the Newsstand in the North Terminal
"Hub" Principal Concession to Donnette
Stafford, a Small Minority Business
Enterpri se.
Airport Imrpovement Program (A.I.P.^ No. 9
No. 88-0120 Resolution approving Project
Application for A. I. P. fund of
$9 . 2-mi 1 1 i on and requesting the Board
of Supervisors to authorize filing of
Project Application anc acceptance of
the resulting grant offer.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this is the third request for
Airport Improvement Funds since the hearing on the Q707 was initiated
DHL Application/Recommendation for Variance
No. 88-0121 This item transmits to the Airports
Commission a Variance Application from
DHL seeking relief from the 25% of
Airlines' operation being required to
be in Stage 3 aircraft as of January
1, 1989. Item recommends that an
independent hearing officer be
appointed to consider application.
Mr. Turpen said that consistent with the Commission's new noise
regulation adopted in January, the Commission has the authority to
appoint a hearing officer to hear requests for variance applications.
He suggested that the Commission elect this option for DHL's request.
This will allow the Airport and the petitioner to present their cases
before an independent party. He advised the Commission that
Northwest Airlines has submitted a request for a partial variance as
wel 1 .
Commissioner Goosby asked if the hearing officer's opinion was
binding or merely advisory.
"' T urpen responded that the hearing officer's decision will be
bi ng.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the hearing officer would be chosen from
a panel .
Mr. Garibaidi responded that he is in consultation with the American
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 7
Arbitration Association and they have informed him that they c?."
provide a hearing officer capable of handling this type of case. He
sa ; c that the idea is to hire one heating officer so staff won't have
to dea 1 with eaucati-g more than one person on this subject.
Commissioner Goosby asked if this procedure has been used before.
Mr. Turpen responded that the only other hearing the Commission has
held was for Burlington/Northern. He expects that there will be a
number of other requests and recommended this approach.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the noise ordinance allows the Airport
to determine whether a hearing officer is to be hired or if the issue
is to be handled in-house.
Mr. Turpen responded that the ordinance provides the Airport with the
opportunity to handle it either way.
Mr. Garibaldi added that the hearing officer's finding will be
presented to the Commission for a decision.
Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Timothy Tracy, representing the
Board of Supervisor's Airport Noise Committee, if he wished to speak.
Mr. Mike Kirby, DHL Airways, said that his company has expanded upon
their initial application and argument for the variance. They are
not able to comment on it at this time but would request that they be
allowed to make both verbal and written responses to any questions
the hearing officer should have.
Mr. Turpen said that this hearing will be noticed within the next
week or two and probably will not be scheduled before August 20.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if there was an appeal process.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that the decision could be appealed in court.
No action was taken on Item No. 9.
Publication of Ten-Year Airport Commemorative Report
Resolution authorizing the publication
of a ten-year airport commemorative
report and awarding design and
publication contract to N Graphic.
Mr. Turpen said that it was suggested by members of the Commission
tha f e<r>»:e the $6C0-million modernization and replacement program has
been leted a commeTorati ve report be prepared. He saic' that the
projec was relatively minor to begin with but has assumed signifi-
cant proportions. He recommended not authorizing the $96,000
expenditure and either terminating the effort, or, continuing in a
modified framework. In the latter alternative the budget would be
reduced significantly and the printing would be given to the
purchaser. He said that this would increase the amount of time
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 8
needed to produce the report and reduce it to a design contract. He
told the Commission that this money nas not yet been expended.
Commissioner Stephens asked how the report would be used.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport has undergone a significant
change since 1979, both physically and economically. Concessions
have become a major part of our business since 1978-1979. The intent
was to demonstrate the Commission's accomplishments in concert with
the staff and put it out as an informational offering to various
agencies, both within the City and the Airport community.
Commissioner Stephens felt it was a good idea and a very inexpensive
way to promote such a large enterprise. He thought that $96,000 was
not a large sum for something like this.
Mr. Turpen suggested that there were then three alternatives: to
approve the expenditure and move ahead as planned, to proceed with
the design contract and go to the Purchaser for printing, or, to
terminate the effort.
Commissioner Stephens said that if Mr. Turpen believes it to be a
good idea staff should move ahead. He thought that the surrounding
communities ought to know what the Airport is doing, its problems and
how they've been addressed, and that it's not a drain on the City but
rather a revenue generator. He felt that if the project is to move
ahead it should be done right or not at all, and that in a business
this size $100,000 should not be a consideration. He told the
Commission that the Bank of San Francisco is only five to ten percent
the size of the Airport and is spending almost this much for a
similar report. He said that this is the only way to achieve any
kind of recognition.
Commissioner Stephens suggested presenting the Commission with a
draft of the general layout and letting the Commission decide its
use. He said that the Commission can always abandon the project at
that point if they don't like it.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked when the Airport would be issuing
bonds again as that was one of the suggested uses.
Mr. Turpen responded that it would be at least another year.
Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the commemorative report would be
valuable for that effort.
Mr. Turpen said that he would return with a layout so that the
Commission can better determine the next step. He agreed that there
was some merit to the report as an educational tool.
Commissioner Fleishell asked for a distribution list. He said that
unlike a bank looking for depositors the Airport does not have to
advertise for planes to land at SF0. All we are doing is informing
the public of the good job that has been done.
Commissioner Stephens agreed with Commissioner Fleishell but added
that the Airport is going to be issuing bonds in the near future and
report^ 1 " this will help sell the bond package. He said that a
Bechtel a ort architect recently explained to him some of the long
term problems SF0 will be faced with in the next ten years. He felt
that one of the ways to address those problems is to be able to talk
about what has been done in the past.
Mr. Turpen agreed with Commissioner Stephens.
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 9
Commissioner Stephens said that Mr. Turpen should not hesitate to
list potentially controversial issues in the report.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Items 10 through 15 and 17 were unanimously adopted. Item No. 16 was
removed from calendar and Item No. 18 was unanimously adopted as amended
10. Retirement Resolution: Benjamin E. Binkley
No. 88-0122
1 1 . Resolution Setting Maximum Fees for Feasibility Consultant Services
No. 88-0123 Resolution setting maximum fees on
Feasibility Consultant Contract for
next bond issue and interim services.
Resolution Authorizing Assignment of South Terminal Flowe t- Shop
Sublease
No. 88-0124 Resolution authorizing assignment of
South Terminal Principal Concession
sublease from La Floresta to Heller
Roberts, Inc.
1 3. Award of Professional Services Agreement:
Preparation of Computer-Generated Diagram and Fault Analysis of
Airport Electrical Distribution System to United Engineering
Technology, Inc.
No. 88-0125 The purpose of this contract is to
create a computerized record for the
entire electrical distribution system
at the Airport. The consultant will
inventory all existing power cables,
stations and load centers, perform
technical analysis, prepare the soft-
ware and manuals, turn them over to
the City, and train Airport personnel
in their use. The contract will be
awarded as a set-aside project for WEE
professional firms in accordance with
Human Rights Commission's guideline.
Contract Cost: $200,000.
1 4 . A ward of Airi i_ . Contract Mo. 2043 :
Removal and Dsposal of Material Adjacent to Taxiwoy 'L'
No. 88-0126 Resolution awarding Contract No. 2043
to Covey Trucking Co., in the amount
of $120", 490.00.
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 10
15. Awa'd of Confact Nc. 2C23--R :
Tra r *~: Barrie-s - Twc Assort Guard She^ers
No. 88-0127 Resolution awarding Contract 2023A-R
to Millard Tong Construction Co., Inc.
in the amount of $314,552.00
Item No. 16 was removed from the calendar.
16,
Bid
Call
- Contract
No.
1665:
Boat
"di ng
Area 'B' P
ier
F-F
Instal lat
ion of 10-
Inch
Watermai n
Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 1665 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
17. Bid Call - Contract No. 988:
Remodel Engineering Building and Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning System
No 88-0127 Resolution approving the scope,
budget, and schedule for Contract No.
988 and authorizing the Director of
Airports to call for bids when ready.
Item No. 18 was unanimously adopted as amended.
18. Travel /Training - Fiscal Year 1988/89
No. 88-0129 Resolution authorizing Airport
representatives to attend conferences
and seminars in Fiscal Year 1988/89.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he did not feel that the Commission
could justify sending employees to Adelaide, Australia, Aukland, New
Zealand and Singapore. He said that he has never seen a list as long
as this.
Mr. Turpen said that at one time staff would place a travel item on
calendar every time an employee had to travel. He said that the
Commission suggested that a list of potential trips be submitted at
the beginning of each fiscal year fully recognizing that only a
fraction of those trips are rarely attended. He said that this
procedure has worked out well in the past as it has saved a lot of
admi ni strati ve work.
Commssioner Stephens said that sending an employee to Wang Telecommun-
ications Training in Los Angeles would be a line-item but sending an
employee to Singapore, Auckland and Adelaide in a one-year period is
something else an3 *n and a budget item and justification should
appear next to t. ? trips
Commissioner Fleishell said that he attended a conference several
years ago as a member of the Commission and he thought it was a waste
of time.
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 11
Commissioner Stephens said that he has had the same experience
with banking conferences.
Commissioner Tsougarakis recognized the administrative hang-uts
ana suggested submitting travel requests on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Turpen responded that an employee can't even be sent to Los
Angeles without first going through an exhaustive approval
process. He said that staff will return to the Commission for
final ratification on any international travel.
Commissioner Fleishell agreed with Mr. Turpen's recommendation.
Commissioner Goosby asked how this list will compare with what has
been spent in previous years.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport rfill spend less this year on
travel than in any previous year. In fact, the Airport has been
spending progressively less for the last five or six years.
Commissioner Goosby asked which of these conferences commissioners
typical ly attend.
Mr. Turpen responded that it is the AOCI conference scheduled to
be held in Seattle from September 11-16, 1988.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that this item will be approved with
the exception of international travel.
The public hearing was opened at 9:32 AM and closed at 9:34 AM,
there being no requests to speak from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING:
19. Increase in Valet Parking Rates
Mr. Turpen said that this is part of the overall revenue package
submitted to the Mayor's Office at the request of the Commission
Commissioner Fleishell said that if these new rates are approved
he would like a six-month analysis to see whether revenue went
down or up.
NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission,
L. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission,
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 12
M.
ADJOURNMEN' TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
There being ^d further calendared business before the Commissic r the
meeting adjo^'nea at 9:34 AM to go into closed session.
Jean Caramatti
/ommission Secretary
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 13
2
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS DEP"
SEP 2 6 1388
SAW run £
MINUTES
AUGUST 22, 1988
SPECIAL MEETING
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EOWARO FLEISHELL
Vice-President
OR. Z.L GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
o* the M-nutes
A1 rports Commi ssior
August 22, 1988
Special Meeting
CALENDAR
SECTION
A.
B.
C.
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
July 19, 1988
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
-0133-A
SPECIAL ITEM:
Retirement Resolution:
Albert K. Hong
J-0133
4-5
F.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Report on "Ground Access to
San Francisco International
Airport", Prepared by Deakin
Harvey, Skabardonis - Oral
Report
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Childcare Center/Student Intern
Program
H.
POLICY:
Policy Statement Prohibiting AIDS -
Related Discrimination 88-0134
6-7
I.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
4. Selection of Financial Advisor
5. Increase in Valet Parking Rates 88-0135
6. Option Approval and Rental Rate
Modification of Lease with Butler
Aviation - Sar Francisco, Inc. 88-0136
7. Contract Modification to Profess -
ional Seiv'ces Agreement with
Deakin, Harve_y, Skabardonis 88-0137
7
7
7-8
8. Big Ca 1 1 - Contract No. 2065:
A-rpc-t Beacon 88-0138
9. Authorization to Accepts Bids
for the South Terminal Cigarette
Vending Lease 88-0139
10. Award of Contract 1559A:
12.
13.
Repair and Reconstruction of
Taxi ways 'G'and 'H' and Runway
1R at Taxiway 'F' 88-0140
11. Award of Contract No. 1464:
Boarding Area 'B' Apron
Extension 88-0141
5-0142
Close
-Out
of
Cont
ract
No
1792:
Recor
JS Library,
Engi neeri ng
Build
Close
inq
Out
of
Cont
ract
No
1557:
Extension
of
Taxi
way
M'
and
Overlay of Taxiway 'F' 88-0143
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
14. Retirement Resolution :
Edward J. Lanzilla 88-0144 9
1 5. Retirement Resolution :
Patrick McLaughlin 88-0131 10
16. Authorization to Distribute
Working Paper 'B' of the
Airport's Master Plan 88-0145 10
17. Declaration of Emergency -
Contract No. 2089: Emergency
Electrical Cable Failure Feeder
12AM-1 (BETNEEN PD-A538 AND STA.
'AM 1 ) 88-0146 10
18. Bid Call - Contract No. 1946:
International Terminal Carpet
Replacement 88-0147 10
19. Bid Call - Contract No. 1665:
Boarding Area 'B' Pier F-F
Instal lation of 10-Inch
Hatermain 88-0148 11
20. Award of Professional Services
Contract for Contract No. 1739 :
Evaluation and Improvements of
Security Systems to Hardy and
Associates, Inc. 88-0149 11
21 . Award of Professional Services
Contract for Contract No. 1985:
Internationa' Terminal Plenum
Space Improvement 88-0150 11
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 2
22. Award c* Contract 1553:
Taxiwav 'L' E<te n s^c to Runway
11
23.
Award cf Contract No. 2046:
Runway 28R/28L Pavement Groovinq
and Repair
88-
-0151
11
24.
Rejection of Al 1 Bids: Hair
Salon Lease
12-14
25.
Re.iect All Bids - Contract No.
1944: West Underpass - Rehabili-
tation of Drainage Pump Station
88-
-0152
11
26.
Type II Modification for Contrac
t
88=
=0153
No. 1877: Emergency Airfield
Pavement Repairs, FY 1987-88
12
27.
Resolution Authorizing Rental
Credit to Avis Rent-A-Car
88-
-0154
12
28.
The Parry Contract
88-
-0155
12
29.
Travel/Traininq FY 1988/89
NEW BUSINESS:
88-
-0156
12
14
CORRESPONDENCE: 15
N. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO
CLOSED SESSION: 15
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 3
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
August 22, 1988
Special Meeting
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present
Absent:
Morris Bernstein, President
J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Donald R. Stephens
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 19,
of the Commission President.
No. 88-0131-A
were adopted by order
D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0130 regarding the settlement of a
claim at the closed session of July
19, 1988.
E. SPECIAL ITEM:
The following item was unanimously adopted.
1 . Retirement Resolution: Albert K. Wong
No. 88-0133
Minutes, August 22, 1988. Page 4
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that it was his pleasure to
recommend this resolution to the Commi ssion . Mr. Hong is retiring
after 37 yea^s of service to the City and County of San Francisco. 20
of which were at San Francisco Airport. Mr. Wong was educated in San
Francisco ana a graduate of Berkeley. He served two yea^s in the
U.S. Army and started his career with the City in 1951 as a Jr. Civil
Engineer in the Water Department. He was the project engineer when
the Airport's primary runways were extended to accommodate the new
generation of aircraft. Mr. Wong has served as a Jr. Assistant,
Associate and Senior Civil Engineer and has been responsible for
tenant improvement construction at the Airport for 20 years.
Mr. Turpen read a statement from Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for
Facilities Operations and Maintenance, who could not be present:
Without a doubt Al Wong embodies all that is good about public
employees and in particular Airport employees. If I were there
I could regale the Airport's Commission with a great many
stories in which airlines with high-priced consultants and
expensive computer models were told by Al Wong, after he slowly
took from his pocket a paper airplane, placed it on their
drawing and did a number of quick calculations, that their
figures were incorrect and their plan wouldn't work. Not once
in my five years at the Airport has Al given me wrong informa-
tion. What's more, he's been steady as a rock when it's
counted most. Whether we're talking informally in my office or
in a heated meeting with a contractor who's threatening to
close down the Airport's busiest runway, his judgment has
always been first rate. Like all great employees he is
selfless. Unlike some who have superior technical knowledge
and enjoy the power that comes with being the sole source of
that knowledge, Al Wong, with great patience, time and again
has shared his knowledge and experience with younger employees
so that they may become superior engineers and the Airport a
better place.
Mr. Turpen added that he could not have said it any better. He
thanked Mr. Wong for his tremendous and outstanding dedicated service
to San Francisco Airport.
Commissioner Bernstein also thanked Mr. Wong for his service to the
Airport. He said that businesses are built and government is run and
we all live because of dedicated people like Mr. Wong.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
2. Report on "Ground Access to San Francisco International Airport",
Prepared by Deakin, Harvey, Skabardonis - Oral Report
Mr. Turpen said that this is an advisory report. Staff is presently
extracting recommendations from the extensive ground transportation
report completed by Mr. Harvey and his firm. Those recommendations,
as well as staff reactions, will be forwarded to the Commission prior
to the next Commission meeting.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 5
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Goosby sa ; d that he met with t h e San Mateo Labor Council at
their request to try to get some action on their chiidca r e center and that
he recaped the Commission's position at that meeting. He said that Ms.
Kessler of the San Mateo Labor Council said that there has been a lot of
confusion over this issue. He told Ms. Kessler that the Commission never
discussed an apprenticeship program, as was her understanding. He felt
that there should be a meeting between the San Mateo Labor Council, staff
and two Commissioners to clear the air over this issue.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Labor Council claimed that they are not
opposed to the Internship Program. He said that Ms. Kessler was in
possession of a document that discussed such a program and that the
Airport's Community Relations Director indicated that an apprenticeship
program had been discussed and they were afraid it would come to pass.
Mr. Turpen said that at one time staff, with the approval of the
Commission, wanted to establish a student intern program which would
entail bringing high school students out to the Airport for a few hours a
week to acquaint them with the Airport and how it works. The program was
put on hold when the labor unions expressed concern that this might
displace Airport employees. The Labor Coalition indicated repeatedly that
they were not in a position to approve or disapprove such a program and
told staff that they must go to the individual unions. He said that Mr.
Bouey has been meeting with the individual unions on this subject for some
time. The Airport is prepared to set up another meeting with the Labor
Coalition, if the Commission wishes. He said that he did not feel that a
meeting with the Coalition would be fruitful since they are not in a
position to approve or disapprove this matter.
Commissioner Goosby told Mr. Turpen that Ms. Kessler did not even know if
the Coalition wanted to meet, he simply made the offer.
Mr. Turpen said that he would contact Ms. Kessler and keep the Commission
informed.
Commissioner Goosby said he would like to attend the meeting.
Commissioner Fleishell said that it was his recollection that after having
agreed to the program, the Labor Coalition was heavily lobbied by Mr.
Martin of the Machinists Union. The Labor Coalition then backed off and
told the Airport to deal with the individual unions.
Mr. Turpen told Commissioner Fleishell that he was correct. He said that
he would send a letter to Ms. Kessler.
H. POLICY
The following item was unanimously adopted.
3. Policy Statement Prohibiting AIDS-Related Discrimination
No. 88-0134 Policy statement prohibiting
discrimination in employment on the
l»s»4» ^f A ,--,,,:,•., H T mm no flof i
discrimination in employment on the
basis of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS), Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome Related Compl°>
(ARC), Human Immunodeficiency Vir
Infection (HIV Infection) or any
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 6
medical signs or symptons related
thereon.
I. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Item No. 4 was put over.
4. Selection of Financial Advisor
Resolution authorizing the selection
of Lazard Freres/Gri sby Brandford as
Financial Advisor for a five-year
period.
Mr. Turpen asked that this item be put over to the next meeting.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he would appreciate an opportunity
to discuss some of the details. He said that for years attorneys
were given a percentage of a bond issue but the Airport broke with
tradition by bidding them on a fee basis instead.
The following items were unanimously adopted.
5. Increase in Valet Parking
No. 88-0135
Mr. Turpen said that this was part of a package which the Commission
presented to the Mayor's Office. The Mayor's approval of this rate
increase is consistent with the Airport's overall revenue plan.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if monthly statements were prepared on
the number of users of the service and wondered if the rate increase
would reduce that number.
Mr. Turpen said that a running tally is kept and that staff would
return in 90 days with a report.
Commissioner Goosby argued that money is made even with rate
increases.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he spoke with a user of th-e service
who told him that it is invaluable when he is in a hurry and that he
would pay anything.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the numbers have declined over the
years .
Mr. Turpen responded that he could not recall.
6. Option Approval and Rental Rate Modification of Lease with Butler
Aviation - San Francisco, Inc.
No. 88-0136 Resolution authorizing the Butler
Aviation - San Francisco, Inc. Lease
extension through February 9, 1994
with a rental rate adjustment.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 7
Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Garibaldi if he reviewed the lease
Mr. Garibaldi responded that he had and said that it was a very old
lease.
Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Garibaldi if the lease contained
anything that offended him.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that he would not write the lease the same
way today but under the conditions we are obligated to honor the
present wording.
Contract Modification to Professional Services Agreement with Deakin,
Harvey, Skabardonis
No. 88-0137 A contract modification to the profes-
sional services agreement with the
firm of Deakin, Harvey, Skabardonis to
conduct a study on the ground trans-
porportation at San Francisco Interna-
tional Airport, increasing the total
funding to $27,300, and providing an
extension of time through January 1,
1989.
Commissioner Goosby asked why this contract was being extended.
Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that the extension is to complete
the report.
Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Harvey will come before the Commission at
the time staff presents its recommendations in order to answer any of
the Commission's questions.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that after the Commission authorized
the $14,000, Mr. Harvey was asked to do additional work on the
original study. She said that Mr. Harvey did a significant amount of
work and that many things have happened at the Airport as a result of
this study.
Commissioner Fleishell said that Mr. Harvey was a good man.
Mr. Turpen said that this will close out this chapter in the
Airport's history.
8. Bid Call - Contract No. 2065:
Airport Beacon
No. 88-0138 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 2065 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to all for bids when ready.
9. Authorization to Accepts Bids for the South Terminal Cigarette
Vending Lease
No. 88-0139 Resolution authorizing Director to
accept bids for the South Terminal
Cigarette Vending Lease.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 8
10. Award of Contract 1559A:
Repair and Reconstruction of Taxiways 'G'and 'H' and Runway 1R at
Ta^wav 'F'
No. 88-0140 Resolution awarding contract No. 1559A
to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.
in the amount of $2,377,096.00.
Commissioner Goosby said that the Commission has reviewed the City
Attorney's opinion and the Commission is aware that a protest has
been answered by the City Attorney.
11 . Award of Contract No. 1464:
Boarding Area 'B' Apron Extension
No. 88-0141 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1464
to Ghilotti Bros., Inc., in the amount
of $859,485.00.
12. Close-Out of Contract No. 1792
Records Library, Engineering Building
No. 88-0142 Resolution to approve a time extension
and assessment of liquidated damages
for avoidable delays and to close out
this contract.
13. Close Out of Contract No. 1557
Extension of Taxi way 'M and Overlay of Taxi way 'F'
No. 88-0143 Resolution to close out contract and
approve time extension of avoidable
delays and assessment of liquidated
damages .
J. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Items 14 through 21, 23 and 25 through 29 were unanimously adopted. Item
No. 22 was put over and Item No. 24 was moved to the end of the calendar
for discussion.
14. Retirement Resolution - Edward J. Lanzilla
No. 88-0144
Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Lanzilla has been with the Airport for a
number of years and has been spearheading the Airport's new effort to
reissue all permits at SFO, consistent with the Airport's new
security plan. He said that Mr. Lanzilla has done an outstanding job
and his dedicated effort will be missed.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 9
15. Retirement Resolution - Patrick McLaughlin
No. 88-0131
16. Authorization to Distribute Working Paper 'B' of the Airport's Maste
Plan
No. 88-0145 Resolution authorizing Director to
distribute Working Paper 'B' to
Airport tenants, the public, govern-
mental agencies, and other interested
parties for review and comment.
17. Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 2089:
Emergency Electrical Cable Failure Feeder 12AM-1 (BETWEEN PD-A538
AND STA. 'AM' )
No. 88-0146 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in
declaring an emergency because of the
failure of the electrical cable
serving the North Field Area, and
directing the Director of Airports to
effect the necessary repairs.
Commissioner Fleishell said that this happened a year ago with the
Chevron cable. He said that since it was discovered at that time
that the cable had some serious problems he assumed that staff would
have checked the other similarly situated power cables.
Mr. Turpen said that it's the third or fourth time this has happened.
He said that a portion of the cable was replaced at the time of the
Chevron failure and the entire cable was subsequently replace.
Mr. Ernie Eavis, Facilities Operations and Maintenance, responded
that the final phase of the contract is going out to bid this
Wednesday and will complete the project. He said that Mr. Yuen's
division will let a contract that will back feed the entire area so
that if any portion of it goes out there will be a second system.
Mr. Turpen asked where the cable failed this last time.
Mr. Eavis responded that the tails had not been replaced and that is
where the failure occurred.
Mr. Turpen asked how many feet of cable is involved.
Mr. Eavis responded that the cable is 2000 feet.
18. Bid Call - Contract No. 1946:
International Terminal Carpet Replacement
No. 88-0147 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 1946 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 10
19. Bid Call - Contract No. 1665:
Boarding Area 'B' Pier F-F
Installation of 10-Inch Haterma^n
No. 88-0148 Resolution apcroving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract Nc. 1665 ard
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
20. Award of Professional Services Contract for Contract No. 1739 :
Evaluation and Improvements of Security Systems to Hardy and
Associates, Inc.
No. 88-0149 This work includes vulnerability
analysis, analysis of alternative
access control systems, preparation of
construction documents and
construction monitoring.
21 . Award of Professional Services Contract for Contract No. 1985:
International Terminal Plenum Space Improvement
No. 88-0150 This work includes investigation
evaluation, and preparation of
construction documents and
construction monitoring.
Item No. 22 was put over.
22. Award of Contract 1553:
Taxi way 'L' Extension to Runway 19L
Resolution awarding Contract No. 1553
to Bay Cities Paving & Grading Inc.,
in the amount of $1,868,369.00.
23. Award of Contract No. 2046:
Runway 28R/28L Pavement Grooving and Repair
No. 88-0151 Resolution awarding Contract -No. 2046
to The Lowrie Paving Company, Inc. in
the amount of $385,850.00.
25. Reject All Bids: - Contract No. 1944:
West Underpass - Rehabilitation of Drainage Pump Station
No. 88-0152 Rejecting all bids and authorizing
Director to re-bid.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 11
26. Type II Modification for Contract No. 1877:
Emergency' Airfield Pavement Repairs, r i seal Year 1987-j
No. 88-0153
Resolution approving time extension
for Contract No. 1877 from September
23, 1988 to December 31, 1988 at no
additional cost to the City.
27. Resolution Authorizing Rental Credit to Avis Rent-A-Car
No. 88-0154
Resolution authorizing rental credit
of $7,101.00 to Avis Rent-A-Car as
reimbursement for counter construction
28. The Parry Contract
No. 88-0155
Contract for the Parry Company to
produce four noise impact area
contours to be used on the Quarterly
Report and at the Airport Round-
table. The contract also provides for
appearances by representatives of the
Parry Company to substantiate the
noise contours. ($30,000)
29. Travel/Training Fiscal Year 1988/
No. 88-0156
Resolution authorizing attendance at
Pacific Basin conferences.
The Commission failed to reject all bids by a two to two vote, with
Commissioners Bernstein and Goosby casting the dissenting votes. This
item will be calendared for the next meeting.
24. Rejection of All Bids: Hair Salon Lease
Resolution rejecting all bids and
authorizing a re-bid for the Hair
Salon Lease.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Adrienne Hanson, Great Haircuts, if she
wished to address the Commission.
Ms. Hanson told the Commission that Great Haircuts submitted all of
the necessary papers with the exception of the certified check. They
had in their possession a cashiers check and cash when they submitted
their papers and indicated at that time that they were willing to run
to the bank and return within 15 minutes with a certified check. She
said that she was told by an Airport staff member that that would be
acceptable.
Ms. Hanson said that she failed to obtain a certified check on
Saturday after spending two and a half hours making inquiries.
Ms. Hanson said that they are qualified, having been in business for
seven years, and would be an asset to the Airport.
Minutes, August 22. 1988, Page 12
Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance,
explained to the Commission that there were two qualified bidders who
failed to follow the p-ocedure so she felt that the item should be
re-bid. She presumed that two of the original bidders would re-bid
and that there might possibly be additional bidde-s this time. She
said that she saw no reason to waive the defect in this bid.
Commissioner Fleishell said that he thought a bifurcated bidding
procedure had been established to prevent this type of problem.
Ms. Gittens said that the bifurcated procedure is only used for
construction contracts since the only documents in a concession
contract that would result in cancellation or termination of the bid
is the bid item itself and the bid bond. None of the other required
items would constitute terminal failure of the bid process. Even
failure to have HRC documentation at the time of the bid would not
result in a non-responsive determination.
Commissioner Goosby said he did not understand the difference between
the two.
Ms. Gittens explained that in the bifurcated process the only items
required at the time the bids are opened are the bid bond and the bid
amount.
Commissioner Fleishell said that the only defect in the bid is that
the bond was filed too late. If the bifurcated system had been in
place someone would have noticed that the bond had not been filed.
He said that in the past the Commission has waived more serious
defects than this. He did not understand why staff was going through
the time and expense to re-bid this item when the top bid is almost
double the second bid and three times larger than the lowest bid.
Ms. Gittens said that the Commission has never waived failure to
submit a bid bond.
Mr. Turpen asked Ms. Gittens to explain the problems with each of the
three bids.
Ms. Gittens explained that Hair Waves missed the deadline on the bid
bond. The second bidder did not meet the required experience. The
third bidder submitted their bid bond in a form that is specifically
prohibited.
Mr. Turpen added that in the past when there has been a large range
in bids the Commission has typically rejected all bids.
Ms. Gittens said that staff has offered to review all of the bidder's
materials before the next bid date.
Commissioner Fleishell felt that was fair.
Mr. Turpen said that generally this type of problem is not
encountered.
Commissioner Goosby asked what the difference was in the validity of
a certified check versus a cashiers check.
Ms. Gittens responded that a cashiers check can be cancelled without
the Airport's knowledge.
Commissioner Fleishell added that the Administrative Code was amended
last year and now directs departments as to what types of securities
can be accepted for performance.
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 13
Ms. Gittens added that due to the problem with certified checks the
Commission has a'sc expanded the kinds of security that car, be
accepted for smaller contracts. She said that banks are typically
reluctant to issue certified checks, claiming that it is a lot of
paper work for them.
Commissioner Fleishell asked if cash was acceptable.
Ms. Gittens said that cash is prohibited as it is not on the list.
Mr. Garibaldi said that cash creates a lot of problems.
Commissioner Fleishell argued that all of the other forms are
substitutes for money.
Commissioner Fleishell moved to reject all bids.
Ms. Hanson said that they were told that a cashiers check would be
acceptable if submitted by 10:00 AM Monday morning.
Ms. Gittens said that this was a case of mi scommunication. She said
that Ms. Si Ion of Property Management could not tell them that they
could not submit anything other than what was on the bid document.
Ms. Hanson was led to believe that the Commission could waive this
defect. Ms. Gittens said that the documents speak for themselves as
to what is prohibited and what is allowable as a bid bond. What Ms.
Silon was trying to say was that she could not fail to allow them in
the room and try to produce whatever they wanted to produce.
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the bidder, having failed to
procure the proper bond on Saturday, could not have obtained one by
the 10:00 AM Monday morning deadline.
Commissioner Goosby said that it is the perogative of the Commission
to waive technical defects.
Ms. Gittens said that that was what the Property Manager was trying
to express. The documents speak for themselves and Ms. Silon could
not speak for the Commission.
Commissioner Goosby said that he was certain that if this defect had
been on the $20,000 bid the Commission would not be taking action to
reject all bids. He did not feel this was fair.
Commissioner Fleishell felt that the contracts and bid proposals
should be reviewed in order to guard against problems such as this.
They should be concise and simple so as not to mislead bidders.
Mr. Turpen said that in general they are concise and simple but
occassional ly problems occur.
K. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission
Minutes, August 22, 1988. Page 14
L. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
* *
N. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:49 AM to go into closed session.
'jean Caramatti
Commission Secretary
Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 15
\4S
2 SAN FRANCISCO
° AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS DEFT.
GAM FRANWt««wO
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EOWARO FLEISHELL
VlcrPr»sld«nt
OR. Z.L. GOOSBY
ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS
DON RICHARDS STEPHENS
LOUIS A.TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
September 20, 1988
CALENDAR
SECTION
A.
B.
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Special Meeting of
August 22, 1988
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Ninth Aviation Safety Award
Smoking Ordinance
88-0157
3
3
3-4
4-5
POLICY:
Water Conservation
88-0158
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
2. Rejection of All Bids - Hair
Salon Lease
3. Northwest Request for A
Variance
4. Authorization to Conduct Pre-
Bid Conference for a Pacific
Bazaar Lease in the North
Terminal
5. Exercise of Option for Lease
No. 85-0108, Associated
Limousine Operator of San
Francisco
6. Option Approval and Rental
Rate Modification of Lease
with Chevron, U.S.A. , Inc.
-0159
-0160
88-0161
88-0162
88-0163
88-0164
5-8
8
8-9
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Declaration of Emergency -
Emergency Electrical Cable
Splice Replacement (Feeder
12AM-1) PD - A243
88-0165
8. Close Out of Contract No.
1564R: Rehabilitate
Drainage Pump Station No. 1 88-0166 9
9. Close Out of Contract 1656:
Replacement of Pumps at
Industrial Waste Pump
Station 'C and 'A' 88-0167 9
10. Bid Call - Contract No. 1686:
Repair Terminal Islands - Lower
Level Road 88-0168 10
11. Award of Professional Contract
to Develop a Pavement Management
System for the Airport 88-0169 10
12. Award of Contract No. 1999:
Terminal Approach Roadways Pave-
ment Widening and Repairs 88-0170 10
13. Airport Development Aid Program
ADAP No. 9, Amendment No. 3 to
Grant Agreement 88-0171 10
14. Resolution Ratifying Personnel
Actions 88-0172 10
15. Approval of Claims Settlements 88-0173 10
16. Rejection of All Bids - Contract
988: Remodel Engineering Build-
ing and HVAC System 88-0174 11
17. Rejection of All Bids - Contract
No. 2044: International and
North Terminal Underground Tanks
Replacement 88-0175 11
18. Rejection of All Bids - Contract
No. 1553: Taxiway 'L' Extension
to Runway 19L 88-0176 11
NEW BUSINESS:
Host Lease
Q707
Ground Transportation
Master Plan
Mayor Agnos - Commendation
for Commissioner Tsougarakis
CORRESPONDENCE:
L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION: 13
11
11
11
-12
12
12
-13
13
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
September 20, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Morris Bernstein, President
Z. L. Goosby
Athena Tsougarakis
Donald R. Stephens
3. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the special meeting of August 22, 1988 were adopted by
order of the Commission President.
No. 88-0157
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti ,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0132 regarding the settlement of a
claim at the closed session of August
22, 1988.
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Tsougarakis commended the Airport for receiving its ninth
Aviation Safety Award. She said that SF0 continues to receive these
annual awards for being the top airport in the country inspite of having
received a perpetual award several years ago.
Commissioner Goosby asked if this standard of excellence was attributed to
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 3
total staff effort or were one or two departments responsible for
maintaining this level of performance.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, responded that it was a total staff
effort. He said that if there is any emphasis it would be in medical
preparedness, which in great measure is due to the contribution of our
Medical Clinic which works closely with staff. Also, Operations and
Police Communications, under Duke Briscoe's guidance, do outstanding jobs
as well. He said that Clay Scott, Assistant Deputy under Duke Briscoe
does a superb job.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the annual Crash/Fire/Rescue drill is
being held this morning at the Airport. He said that Airport staff is
very creative in this area. Among other achievements, SFO had the first
mobile bomb scanning trailer in the country. He said that SFO's efforts
have been widely recognized.
Mr. Turpen said that KCBS mistakenly announced this morning that the
Airport's Commission would be discussing a smoking regulation at the
Airport. He said that there is nothing on calendar in that regard, nor
was anything anticipated for today. Staff is looking into amending the
Airport's smoking regulation as a result of an ordinance adopted by the
Board of Supervisors which mandates certain changes in smoking/non-smoking
areas. A recommendation will be presented to the Commission in the future
Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, explained that the Board of
Supervisors ordinance requires all City departments and any property
leased by the City to comply with its conditions. He said that the main
condition is that smoking areas in public areas must be physically
segregated from the rest of the public area and that means that a wall
must divide the smoking area from the non-smoking area.
Mr. Garibaldi told the Commission that it will be very difficult to
establish discrete smoking areas in the International Terminal lobby area
due to its configuration. Staff is currently trying to determine how it
can comply with that ordinance without creating a lot of problems.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that staff is doing a survey of the Airport
in order to provide recommendations to the Commission.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the ordinance provides for exemptions.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that exemptions for bars and restaurants have been
included but the ordinance defines a bar or restaurant as being enclosed
by four walls. He said that the problem the Airport faces is that a
number of its facilities are not enclosed by four walls.
Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if an exemption process has been
established.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that there 1s no way to appeal.
Mr. Turpen added that staff will provide alternatives for the Commission
once the impact has been determined. One alternative would have to
include the physical and financial limitations of the Airport. The other
alternative would seek some type of exemption wherein the Airport could
live within the spirit of the ordinance without the exacting physical
demands .
Commissioner Stephens asked what the chances were of obtaining an
exemption.
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Turpen responded that he felt the chances would be fairly good.
Mr. Garibaldi said that the Supervisors don't consider the Airport when
they adopt these ordinances. They base their decisions on the facilities
familiar to them in town and forget about the unique situation at the
Ai rport .
Commissioner Goosby commented that the Supervisors should take into
account the fact that an airport lobby can be the size of a football field
Mr. Turpen said that the boarding area of the International Terminal was
designed as an open space area to accommodate passenger volume and the
design purpose of the facility would be defeated by building walls. He
said that the Airport will have to be creative in its response to this
ordinance in order to live within the regulation at a reasonable cost and
not compromise operational considerations.
Commissioner Goosby reminded the Commission that passengers can no longer
smoke on flights that are less than two hours.
Mr. Turpen said that there are some exceptions, i.e. a longer flight can
be declared non-smoking if there are a certain number of non-smokers on
board. He said that Northwest has a total ban on its domestic flights.
POLICY:
The following item was unanimously adopted.
1 . Water Conservation
No. 88-0158 Proposed resolution setting the charge
for excess use of water over the
al lotment.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:
By a 3 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Tsougarakis casting the dissenting
vote, the Commission waived the defect in the Hanson's Great Haircuts
bid. The Commission then unanimously approved award of the Hair Salon
lease to Hanson's Great Haircuts.
2. Rejection of All Bids - Hair Salon Lease
No. 88-0159 Resolution rejecting all bids and
No. 88-0160 authorizing a re-bid for the Hair
Salon Lease.
Mr. Turpen said that the Commission should recall from the last
meeting that there was some controversy over the bid bonds for this
lease. He continued to recommend that the Commission reject all bids
Ms. Hanson, Hanson's Great Haircuts, said that at the time of the bid
they had in their possession all of the required items, minus the
certified check. She explained that in lieu of the certified check
she had cash and a cashier's check, which was accepted.
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 5
Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Hanson who told her that she could
submit a cashier's check.
Ms. Hansor responded that she submitted her documents to Eileen Silon
who then asked another staff member if the cashier's check was accep-
table or if cash should be submitted instead. Ms. Hanson said that
she was told that they did not want the cash but would take the check.
Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Hanson why she submitted a cashier's
check rather than a certified check after having read the documents
issued by the Airport. He said that the documents are very specific
as to the bid bond form.
Ms. Hanson confessed that having neglected to open the envelope and
read the documentation immediately, it was not until Saturday that
she discovered the stipulation.
Commissioner Stephens asked if there was a reason why staff was being
so technical. He said that a certified check is an obligation of a
bank. A cashier's check accepts a check and turns it into the
obligation of a bank. He wanted to know why we were turning someone
down on this basis. He said that it's good money to the Airport.
Ms. Gittens responded that it's good money as long as the person who
submitted the cashier's check keeps it good. The Airport's experi-
ence has been that a cashier's check can be cancelled without our
knowledge.
Ms. Gittens said that the Commission, as well as the Board of
Supervisors, looked into this issue with respect to construction
contracts in 1985. She said that smaller businesses were having
trouble obtaining certified checks as banks were indicating that it
was too much trouble. The Commission subsequently adopted a policy
expanding the list of acceptable types of security for bid bonds for
smaller leases to five and three types of security for all others.
Ms. Gittens said that preceeding Commission action the Board of
Supervisors clarified its own policy with respect to bid bonds. The
Board's policy does not allow for cashier's checks.
Commissioner Stephens asked Mr. Garibaldi what the reason would be to
take a certified check over a cashier's check.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that it is better security for the Airport.
The individual drawing a cashier's check can withdraw the funds at
any time without notice, leaving the Airport without security. That
cannot be done with a certified check.
Mr. Turpen said that the Commission can either reject all bids and
rebid the lease, at which point the bidders might have a better
understanding of the process, or, waive the defect.
Ms. Gittens added that if the Commission opts to waive this kind of a
defect then the Commission might as well waive an analagous defect on
the high bidder. She said that the two eligible bidders had
basically the same defect, i.e. failure to procduce an acceptable bid
bond. The high bidder was 15 minutes late but had the right kind of
security.
Commissioner Goosby argued that one was late and one was on time and
had cash. He asked if cash was an acceptable form of security.
Ms. Gittens said that the Airport has not accepted cash.
Commissioner Goosby said that he voted against it because he felt
Minutes, September 20, 1988. Page 6
that the move to reject all bids was due to the fact that Ms. Hanson
was the low bidder. He felt that if she had been the high bidder her
bid would have been accepted. The Commission has the right to waive
this defect and has done so in the past.
Commissioner Stephens said that he has had the feeling in the past
that some bidders were trying to take advantage of the Commission and
slide around the edge of an issue. He said that when a bidder shows
up with a cashier's check and $2500 in cash it would be difficult to
say that the bid was not made in good faith.
Commissioner Goosby said that Ms. Hanson submitted the cashier's
check because she was told by a staff member that it would be
acceptable to do so. She could have submitted the cash just as
easily.
Ms. Gittens said that the high bidder had a similar defect in that he
failed to submit an acceptable bid bond because he was late.
Commissioner Stephens felt that that was a different defect. He
agreed with Commissioner Goosby in that Ms. Hanson bid in good faith
and that the recommendation to reject is due to the fact that she has
the low bid.
Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed that Ms. Hanson showed good faith but
felt that the Commission must also keep in mind that its responsibi-
lity is to the Airport, not towards any one bidder. She said that
the Commission has the option to reject all bids. She cautioned the
Commission that waiving this defect would set a precedent and could
be used as leverage by other concessionaires.
Commissioner Stephens asked Mr. Garibaldi if the Commission had the
authority to waive this defect.
Mr. Garibaldi responded that although the Commission has the
authority to waive this defect he would be concerned about the great
disparity between the high bidder and the low bidder. He reminded
the Commission that one of the obligations the Commission has under
the Lease and Use Agreement is to maximize the Airport's revenues.
Commissioner Stephens asked how long it would take to rebid this
lease.
Ms. Gittens responded that it could be rebid in three weeks as the
specifications would not have to be changed.
Mr. Turpen added that Ms. Gittens had indicated to him that she would
be willing to go to a two-tiered system where all documents except
the bid amount would be examined.
Commissioner Stephens felt that was a good idea.
Ms. Gittens said that she would ensure that the next bid is on a
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, rather than a Monday.
Commissioner Tsougarakis also suggested that bids be opened at 5:00
PM rather than 10:00 AM.
Ms. Gittens responded that conducting the bid opening at 10:00 AM has
worked well. She said that traffic problems seem to arise later in
the day. She added that the Hair Waves bid was late because they did
not realize that the banks they were dealing with did not open until
10:00 AM.
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 7
Commissioner Goosby argued that if the Hair Waves had been told by
staff that they could be 15 minutes late he would approve their bid.
Ms. Hanson was told by staff that she could submit the check instead
of the cash.
Commissioner Tsougarakis disagreed and said she would not have voted
any differently.
With Commissioner Tsougarakis casting the dissenting vote, the
Commission voted 3 to 1 to waive the defect in Hanson's Great Cuts
bid. The Commission then voted unanimously to award the lease to
Hanson' s Great Cuts.
Items 3 through 6 were unanimously adopted.
3. Northwest Request for A Variance
No. 88-0161 This item transmits to the Airports
Commission a Variance Request from
Northwest seeking to continue operat-
ing Stage 2 aircraft during nighttime
hours after January 1, 1989, when
Stage 2 aircraft operation is prohibi-
ted by our Noise Abatement Regulation
Airport Resolution 88-0016. Item
recommends that an independent hearing
officer be appointed to consider
request.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this is much like DHL's request
previously brought before the Commission. Northwest is requesting a
variance from the air operations bulletin for nighttime operations.
The Commission directed staff to secure an independent hearing
officer to consider this request and render their findings to the
Commission for its decision. He continued to recommended this as the
most efficient method of handling these matters. He said that a
hearing officer will be secured from the American Arbitration
Association.
Commissioner Tsougarakis recommended that the Commission be provided
with a quarterly report on the variances issued.
Mr. Turpen explained that DHL was requesting a waiver from the 25
percent rule, whereas Northwest's variance request is for the 100
percent stage 3 nighttime requirement.
4. Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference for a Pacific Bazaar
Lease in the North Terminal
No. 88-0162
Commissioner Goosby complimented staff on this concept.
5. Exercise of Option for Lease No. 85-0108, Associated Limousine
Operator of San Francisco
No. 88-0163 Resolution approving the renewal
option of Lease No. 85-0108 for
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 8
Associated Limousine Operators of San
Francisco, effective February 22,
1988, for two years, under the same
terms and conditions.
6. Option Approval and Rental Rate Modification of Lease with Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc.
No. 88-0164 Resolution authorizing a ten year
option extension and a rental
adjustmentfor Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
operation of bulk storage plant.
Commissioner Goosby said he could not understand why no one wanted to
bid this concession.
Mr. Turpen said that staff failed in their persistent attempts to
secure potential bidders.
Ms. Gittens said that the Airport received a $500,000 yearly minimum
for this lease in the 1 960 ' s and had to drop it down to about $75,000
when it was last bid.
H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Items 7 through 18 were unanimously adopted.
7. Declaration of Emergency - Emergency Electrical Cable Splice
Replacement (Feeder 12AM-1) PD - A243
No. 88-0165 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in
declaring an emergency because of the
failure of the electrical cable splice
serving the North Field Area and
directing the Director of Airports to
effect the necessary repairs.
Close Out of Airport Contract No. 1564R:
Rehabilitate Drainage Pump Station No. 1
No. 88-0166 Resolution to approve a time extension
and assessment of liquidated damages
for avoidable delays and close out
this contract.
Closeout of Airport Contract No. 1656:
Replacement of Pumps at Industrial Waste Pump Station 'C and 'A'
No. 88-0167 Resolution to approve a time extension
and assessment of liquidated damages
for avoidable delays and close out
this contract.
itomhor Jfl 1 Qflfl Pane Q
10. Bid Call - Contract No. 1686:
Repair - Terminal Islands-Lowe- Level Road
No. 88-0168 Resolution approving the scope,
budget, and schedule for Contract No.
1686 and authorizing the Director of
Airports to call for bids when ready.
11 . Award of Professional Services Contract to Develop a Pavement
Management System for the Airport
No. 88-0169 Resolution awarding professional
services contract to ARE, Inc. in the
amount of $120,000.
12. Award of Contract No. 1999:
Terminal Approach Roadways Pavement Widening and Repairs
No. 88-0170 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1999
to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. in the amount
of $94,990.00.
13. Airport Development Aid Program ADAP No. 9
Amendment No. 3 to Grant Agreement
No. 88-0171 Resolution accepting Amendment #3 to
ADAP No. 9 Grant Agreement and
authorizing the Director to execute
said Amendment.
14. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions
No. 88-0172 Resolution in accordance with the
requirements of San Francisco City
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and
approving certain personnel actions
taken by the Director of Airports.
Commissioner Goosby said that he did not recall ever seeing .this type
of item on the agenda and was glad for the opportunity to review
these actions. He asked if the Commission could receive copies of
job classifications referred to in these reports.
Mr. Turpen explained that there are various types of hiring
mechanisms. Some positions are temporary and the employee is hired
for a set period of time. Others are hired temporarily and can stay
in the position until an exam is held.
15. Approval of Claims Settlement
No. 88-0173 Resolution approving the settlement of
claims not exceeding $5,000.00 for the
period April to June, 1 1988. Total
claims: $2,250.00
Minutes, September 20. 1988, Page 10
16. Rejection of All Bids - Contract No. 988:
Remodel Engineering Building and HVAC System
No. 88-0174
17. Rejection of All Bids - Contract No. 2044:
International and North Terminal Underground Tanks Replacement
No. 88-0175
18. Rejection of All Bids - Contract No. 1553:
Taxiway 'L' Extension to Runway 19L
No. 88-0176 Proposed resolution rejects all bids
due to Airport funds being tied up in
1 itigation.
I. NEW BUSINESS:
Commissioner Stephens asked what was happening on the Host lease.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Mayor's Office has requested additional
information from staff and Host/Marriott. That information has been
provided and staff is awaiting a decision from the Mayor's Office. He
said that he indicated to the Mayor's Office that a decision is needed by
September 30, 1988. If closure has not been reached by that date he will
withdraw his recommendation at the October 18 Commission meeting as he
felt that allowing this issue to pend for nine months does not serve the
purpose of the minority community, the concessionaire, staff or the
purposes of professionalism.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that an appeal has been filed to the FAA on
the Administrative Law Judge's decision in the Q707 case.
Commissioner Stephens asked if the $8 . 6-mi 1 1 ion is lost.
Mr. Turpen replied that it will not be lost until September 30, 1988 as
the Airport has gone to the 9th Circuit for an injunction against the loss
of that money. The appeal is based on Federal law, put in place in
January, which stipulates that money cannot be denied without a hearing.
He said that no hearing was held. He hoped that the injunction is upheld
prior to the September 30 deadline so that the funds will be held pending
resolution of the Q707 issue.
Commissioner Tsougarakis offered her parting words... "Go get urn."
Mr. Turpen said that staff will be returning to the Commission within the
next couple of weeks with information on ground transportation, i.e. rule
changes as they relate to vans and rate changes with respect to the per
trip charge. Staff is currently working on this issue and meeting with
some of the effected parties.
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 11
Commissioner Goosby asked if the rates will be raised.
Mr. Turpen responded that he would like to raise the rates back to $1.00.
Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed with Mr. Turpen.
Mr. Turpen explained that the 35?! fee has merely been a license to circle.
He said that the new "Star Wars" system will be in place on January 1 and
will give the Airport an extremely accurate account. He said that it has
taken a lot longer than anticipated to install but will be well worth it
when completed.
Mr. Turpen said that staff is also looking at an A/B permit system. The
"A" permit would allow ground transportation vehicles to come to the
terminal roadways. The "B" permit would allow those vehicles to disembark
their passengers at a remote location and transfer from there. He said
that a people-mover system is ultimately planned.
Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the size of the lower roadway must be
included in some long range plan.
Mr. Turpen explained that the problem is that the roadway is confined on
both sides by the physical relationship of the garage and the terminal.
He said that staff is considering setting up a remote facility and
dedicating some space on the lower-level for a people-mover. That would
free the roadway of rent-a-car buses and offer the opportunity to balance
traffic between the two levels. He said that it would also offer
passengers an attractive alternative.
Mr. Turpen said that the Commission should have received their copies of
the Master Plan. He said that 150 copies were sent out for comment.
Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if the comments in Mr. Tan's letter
would be directed to a pre-bid conference. He said that Mr. Tan makes
some good points.
Ms. Gittens responded that Mr. Tan's letter would be directed to a pre-bid
conference.
Mayor Art Agnos joined the meeting at 9:40 AM.
Mayos Agnos thanked Commissioner Tsougarakis for her four years of service
to the City. He explained that Commissioner Tsougaraki s' s departure
results from a rotational change rather than any reflection of her
service. He told the Commission that the rotational changes he is making
in Commissions offer opportunities to San Franciscans to serve on various
Commissions that determine policy for San Francisco and have no other
intent.
Mayor Agnos said that Commissioner Tsougarakis has showed special interest
not only in noise abatement, which has been an on-going problem and an
issue on which he commends the Airports Commission for the position which
it recently took vis a vis a Federal issue. He said that Commissioner
Tsougarakis has also been involved in the Airport's ground transportation
issue. Mayor Agnos said that the area which is his personal favorite is
the work which she did with the Art Committee for the Airport. He said
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 12
that the exhibitions on display at the Airport have been truly
spectacular. He receives compliments about them not only as he travels
through the City but as he travels around the country. He thanked her for
her special role in that effort.
Mayor Agnos again thanked Commissioner Tsougarakis for her service and
presented her with a plaque.
Commissioner Tsougarakis thanked the Mayor. She said that she was
greatful for the opportunity to serve on the Airports Commission and in
other capacities prior to this. She said that she began her service in
1975 and has been through pieces of four administrations. One thing she
has found is that the staffs of various departments with which she has
been associated have always been very solid, but especially the Airport,
Administration in and Administration out. They have done a tremendous job
and continue to do so.
Commissioner Tsougarakis wished the Mayor well and told him that he has a
good department in the Airport. She said that she hopes to be a part of
the Administration in some capacity in the future.
Mayor Agnos said he is creating an informal alumnae group of former
Commissioners whom he calls upon for special projects and advice from time
to time. He said that the latest example of that is Toby Rosenblatt,
former President of the Planning Commission, whom he has asked to help
review proposals being made on baseball stadiums. He said that the fact
that Commissioner Tsougarkis has been rotated out does not mean that she
has ended her service to the City.
Commissioner Bernstein told Commissioner Tsougarakis that he has served on
Commissions for a very long time and he would never try to rank
individuals but she would certainly be tied for first. He thanked
Commissioner Tsougarakis and told her that he felt the City owes her for
her service.
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:50 AM to go into closed session.
/k-cTT
Je|m Caramatti
omission Secretary
Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 13
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
i'urijc LIBRARY
OCTOBER 4, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
J. EDWARD FLEISHELL
Vice-President
DR. Z.L GOOSBY
DONALD R. STEPHENS
SHARON B. DUVALL
LOUIS A.TURPECM
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commi ssion
October 4, 1988
CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION
SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE
A. CALL TO ORDER:
B. ROLL CALL:
C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meeting of
September 20, 1988 88-0177
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Fl el she 1 1 ' s resigna-
tion
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Canadian Airlines International,
Ltd. -Application/Recommendation
for Variance 88-0178
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
2. Retirement Resolution:
Cruz Gallndo 88-01 79-A 5
3. Professional Services Contract
for Commemorative Brochure 88-0179 5
4. Design Review Approval:
International Terminal Cafe and
Dim Sum/Sushi Bar 88-0180 5
5. Declaration of Emergency:
Contract No. 2130: Upper
Level Road - South Terminal 88-0181 5
6. Award of Professional Services
Contract to Sear-Brown Group
for Waterproofing North
Terminal Roof 88-0182 5
7. Contract No. 1464: Boarding
Area 'B' Apron Extension 88-0183 5
PUBLIC HEARING:
Proposed Increase in Ground
Transportation Fee 6-10
Mayor Agnos Commends
Commissioner J. Edward FT ei she 1 1 10
H. NEW BUSINESS: 10
I. CORRESPONDENCE: 10
J. CLOSED SESSION: 11
K. ADJOURNMENT 11
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
October 4, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:00 A.M. 1n Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present: J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President
Z. L. Goosby
Sharon B. Duval 1
Absent: Morris Bernstein, President
Donald R. Stephens
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 4, 1988 were adopted by
order of the Commission President.
No. 88-0177
D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Fleishell said that upon assuming office Mayor Agnos asked
all Commissioners to submit their resignations. He said that he offered
his resignation at that time even though he had two more years to serve.
He said that he met with the Mayor several times to discuss his Ideas as
to where the City should be heading and concluded that it was In the best
Interest of the City to resign. His resignation will take effect at the
conclusion of todays meeting. Commissioner Fleishell said that 1t has
been a pleasure to serve with the Airport staff and his fellow
Commissioners. He has spoken with members of the senior staff and left a
standing offer to share his 10 years of experience whenever it was needed.
E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following Item was unanimously adopted.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 3
Canadian Airlines, International, Ltd. - Application/Recommendation
for Variance
No. 88-0178 This item transmits to the Airports
Commission a Variance Application from
Canadian Airlines International, Ltd.
seeking relief from having 25X of the
Airline's operation conducted by Stage
3 aircraft as of January 1, 1989 as
required by our Airport Noise
Regulation. Item recommends that an
Independent hearing officer be
designated to consider application.
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that this
request for a variance Is similar to those previously brought before
the Commission. He explained that there are two elements to the
Noise Regulation, one requires all operators serving SFO to have 25X
of their operations performed with the quietest aircraft. The other
element requires that all operations between the hours of 1:00 AM and
6:00 AM be performed with the quietest possible aircraft.
Mr. Turpen said that requests for variance have been received from
six airlines. The Commission elected to assign these hearings to an
independent hearing officer. This Item provides authorization to
include this request for variance from Canadian Airlines with the
others.
Commissioner Goosby asked which airlines have requested a variance.
Mr. Turpen responded that Northwest is requesting a variance from the
nighttime rule. Canadian, DHL, Evergreen, Branlff and Flying Tiger
have requested variances from the 25X rule. He said that those six
will probably be the only non-compliant airlines in operation at SFO
on January 1 .
Mr. Turpen said that around September 1 staff sent several notices
out to aeronautical tenants as well as letters to CEO's and Station
Operations offices reminding them of the requirements that will be
effective on January 1, 1989. He wanted to give the airlines enough
time to apply for a variance and give the Airport time to conduct the
variance process 1n a methodical manner.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the airlines will be responsible for
paying part of the cost for the hearing officer.
Mr. Turpen responded that the airlines would not have to share the
cost as this is the Airport's hearing.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that 1t 1s anticipated that the
hearings will be held at the end of October. The hearing officer
will render findings to the Commission, through him. Mr. Turpen said
that he will evaluate those findings and provide his views to the
Commission. It will be the Commission's responsibility to either
grant or deny the variance request based on those findings.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 4
2. Retirement Resolution: Cruz Galindo
No. 88-01 79-A
3. Professional Services Contract for Commemorative Brochure
No. 88-0179
Design Review Approval: International Terminal Cafe and Dim Sum/
Sushi Bar
No. 88-0180
Declaration of Emergency
Contract No. 2130:
Upper Level Road - South Terminal
No. 88-0181 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in
declaring an emergency because of
concrete slab failures of the upper
level road, and directing the Director
to effect the necessary repairs.
6. Award of Professional Services Contract to Sear-Brown Group For
Waterproof inq North Terminal Roof
No. 88-0182 Scope of contract includes investiga-
tion of existing conditions, design of
new waterproofing membrane , repair of
skylights and parapets, inspection
services during construction, and
laboratory testing of waterproofing
membrane. Total contract cost:
$82,600.
Contract No. 1464:
Boarding Area 'B' Apron Extension
No. 88-0183 Resolution approving the deletion of
Mendocino Construction Services, Inc.
as subcontractor to Ghllottl Bros.,
Inc. on Contract No. 1464, Boarding
Area 'B', Apron Extension.
G. PUBLIC HEARING:
The Public Hearing was convened at 9:08 AM and adjourned at 9:30 AM, there
being no further public testimony.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 5
8. Proposed Increase in Ground Transportation Fee
Mr. Turpen asked Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and
Finance, to brief the Commission.
Ms. Gittens said that two years ago staff recommended a new system
for cost recovery for commercial ground transportation vehicles.
This system allocated the applicable cost for commercial ground
transportation vehicles based on the number of trips. At that point
a trip billing system was instituted. The cost discovered two years
ago, based on our cost allocation system used for all other rates and
charges at the Airport, was determined to be $1.00 per trip. The
Commission, at that time, determined that since the program was just
beginning, full cost recovery should not be achieved at the first
step. She said that after two and one half years the Commission and
the Mayor are more Interested In achieving full cost recovery and
maximizing revenue for the City. Staff has been asked to return with
recommendations for the ground transportation fee.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the recommendation was $1.00 per trip.
Mr. Turpen responded that that was correct.
Mr. John Bosso, Santa Cruz Alrporter, said that he was representing
most of the ground transportation operators and was circulating a
petition around the room for signatures. He read the petition to the
Commission and asked that it be made part of the record. (See
attached)
Mr. Gene Blazek, Imperial Inn, said that they are a small operator in
South San Francisco and they aren't getting what they are paying for
now. Their drivers can't pick up their passengers in the designated
area, which they are being charged to use, because of unauthorized
vehicles, such as taxicabs, parking in the area. He did not feel an
Increase would help his business or the Airport.
Commissioner Goosby asked how many trips he makes a week or a month.
Mr. Blazek responded that he has 51 rooms and they average around 100
trips a month for a cost of $50. He complained that his drivers
receive tickets for double parking at the Airport because they can't
park in the designated areas.
Mr. Robert Bledsoe, Grovesnor Hotels, said that they have two hotels
at the Airport, the 322 room Holiday Inn and the Grovesnor Airport
Inn with 206 rooms. When the ground transportation regulation was
first Instituted they estimated that the Holiday Inn made about 1400
trips to the Airport per month, for a cost of $350. He said that
they have found that estimate to be low and that they are actually
making about 1800 trips per month and paying $450 a month. He felt
that the $1.00 increase was substantial considering the competition
at the Airport. His vans can't park In the designated areas and
there Isn't enough space to serve their passengers properly. He
complained that the Airport Police hastle his drivers.
Mr. Phil Hesley, Executive Vice President of Park 'N' Fly, told the
Commission that they need more notice when this type of issue comes
before the Commission. He said that his lot received notice on
Thursday.
Mr. Hesley said that Park 'N' Fly presently pays in excess of $25,000
a year to the Airport for this operation. He said that they have
complained to the Airport many times that they can't use the
designated area because the Airport Police allow van drivers to take
their breaks In that area rather than the holding area.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 6
Consequently, Park 'N' Fly drivers can't pick up their customers.
Mr. Hesley also told the Commission that the blue and the green zones
can't be differentiated at night. He said that the public doesn't
care about the color of the zone, they simply want to know where to
go to get their transportation. He asked the Airport to change the
color scheme so that the zones can be differentiated easily.
Mr. Hesley also asked to see a better breakdown of applicable costs
to the ground transportation operators. He asked if It is meaningful
for the operators to absorb these costs and how these trips will be
monitored. He said that the Airport presently uses a self-audit
system wherein the operators are responsible for reporting the number
of trips they make. He said that his company submits honest figures
but how does he know 1f other operators are being honest. If the fee
Is raised to $1.00 will other operators be paying their fair share of
the burden.
Mr. Hesley did not feel that It would be fair for SuperShuttle to be
considered at a lower number unless there 1s a cost justification for
it. He complained that SuperShuttle uses both the Inside and outside
lanes so they can provide better service to their passengers. He did
not understand why that was allowed.
Mr. Hesley said he did not understand the number of trips that are on
the cost analysis. He asked what's Included In 1t and how the
Airport arrived at that number. He asked If it Included Airport
vehicles or ground transportation people only. He said that he
recognized the difficulty In differentiating the vehicles that pass
through the Airport as some are quite similar, inspite of their
distinctive markings, and asked how the Airport proposed to handle
this problem. He also asked what benefits would be provided to the
public and to the ground transportation operators if the rates go up.
Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen to explain the system that will
be installed in January.
Mr. Turpen explained that staff has been working on an automatic
vehicle identification system which will be operational on or about
January 1. Each commercial vehicle at the Airport will be required
to carry an encoded device which will be read by special scanners and
will tell the Airport which vehicle just entered, the time and the
lane, etc. and give tallied counts and the necessary data for billing
purposes. The computer Information will be available and can be
checked and will be as close as the Airport can get to an objective
system. This system will not only benefit the Airport 1n terms of
billing and understanding roadway utilization but will benefit ground
transportation operators in terms of letting them know what their
Individual vehicle activity has been at the Airport during certain
periods of the day. He said that this system will hopefully reduce
the number of redundant trips and allow easier access to the
roadways. He said that a recently completed study of hotel/motel
vehicles and vans showed that they were only averaging 1.4 passengers
per trip. He felt that that average was low and inconsistent with
the Airport's goal of maximizing the number of passengers per vehicle
and minimizing the number of vehicle trips. He said that this
proposal was aimed at a single objective of getting frequent roadway
users to pay their proportionate share and understand roadway
ut1 lizatlon.
Mr. Hesley asked who would pay for the equipment.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport will pay to Install the system
and the first transponder. There will be a fee for vehicles
requiring replacement transponders.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 7
Mr. Hesley asked what type of cost this would mean and if it would be
absorbed through the increase in fees.
Mr. Turpen responded that it would.
Mr. Robert Leech, Leech's Auto Rental, said that they fought a
proposed fee in 1973, contending that everyone should pay to enter
the Airport. Although the Airport abandoned the idea and independent
auto renters didn't pay a fee from 1973 to 1980, Park 'N' Fly and the
others kept paying. The Airport was fought again In 1980 and again
the Airport abandoned the idea, yet the hotels/motels and Park 'N'
Fly kept paying.
Mr. Leech said that 1n 1986 the Airport wanted a $1.00 fee for
traffic congestion. Cost recovery for roadways was never mentioned.
The Airport was fought again. He said that the Independent auto
renters will go to court 1f the fees are raised.
Mr. Leech asked the other operators In the audience to meet with him
in the corridor after the meeting.
Mr. Andy DePaul , Good Neighbors Airbus, deferred to Mr. Steel.
Mr. Eldon Johnson declined to speak.
Mr. Lemlsut, Grovesnor Airport Inn, said he did not have anything to
add to Mr. Bledsoe's statement.
Mr. Jimmy Steel, Yellow Cab Coop, speaking on behalf of the Airport
shuttles, said that they submitted an interim proposal to the Airport
and have met a couple of times. They feel that this increase is
inappropriate at this time and asked for a 60-day delay. They did
not feel that a $1.00 fee was warranted as far as the shuttles were
concerned. He said that through their proposal traffic will be
eliminated, as will the cost to the Airport. They have outlined
their proposal and will amend it subject to further discussions with
Mr. Turpen and his staff. He believed that a revised proposal would
soon be avai lable.
Mr. Steel again asked for a 60-day continuance as they did not
receive notification of this issue until Thursday or Friday of last
week.
Mr. Ken Tehaney, Villa Hotel, told the Commission that this increase
would add $50,000 to the ground transportation fees of some San Mateo
County-based hotels at a time when these hotels are not making
money. He disagreed with this Increase although he did feel that a
reasonable rate increase would be heard. He asked for a postponement
In light of the Installation of the "Star Wars" system In January to
see what It will do to the Airport's revenues. He said that this
system might aid In eliminating some of the needless runs that are
being made.
Mr. Tehaney asked if the motivation behind this increase was a
traffic problem or a revenue problem.
Mr. Tehaney asked for a postponement of six months to a year to see
If this device will generate revenues and help to control traffic.
At the same time it will give the hotels and other services a chance
to see If they can provide some type of common bus service for all
the hotels and possibly approach PUC to help organize system.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 8
Mr. Charles Weiss, Timesavers, told the Commission that he is the
administrator-driver of a one vehicle operation. He said that 15
percent of his business takes him to the Airport so the $1.00 fee on
10-15 trips a month would not be a problem to him. He said that he
was moved to appear before the Commission because of the $1,000 cash
per vechile deposit they are required to pay In order to operate at
the Airport. He said that he will be paying less than $10.00 a month
to the Airport and yet the Airport is holding $1,000 of his money.
Mr. Weiss told the Commission that Federal tax laws require that all
Income, Including Interest, be reported yet he has been unable to
find out how much Interest that money Is accruing. He said that Ms.
SI Ion (Airport Property Management) could not give him an answer. He
was subsequently told that the City Attorney's Office Indicated that
the Airport 1s required to pay Interest however no one knows how much
and apparently It Is being given no thought. He said that since he
never received the necessary form Indicating how much Interest he was
accruing he could not report It to the IRS. He said that while the
Airport Is Interested 1n Increasing revenues no one Is paying a
second thought to complying with Federal regulations in this regard.
Mr. Weiss said that the $1,000 fee was a financial hardship and he
hoped that the Airport would give consideration to people like him.
Mr. Weiss also told the Commission that he had a 30-day revokable
permit that allows him to park in the courtyard yet he continues to
see the general public parking in those areas without being issued
tickets by Airport security. He said that space is limited and the
situation is especially bad during the peak holiday season.
Commissioner Fleishell said that the Airport has a commitment to pay
interest and Federal law requires us to file a document annually,
carboning the taxpayer. He asked Mr. Garibaldi to look into it.
Mr. Martin Kantoff, representing the Hotel and Restaurant Association
of San Mateo, told the Commission that the hotel van service provided
to hotel customers is a no-charge service, unlike a shuttle service
or a taxicab. If the fee goes up to $1.00 it will place a tremendous
hardship on the hotels in the area. He requested a postponement in
order to allow time to examine the various proposals and alternatives
available to them to limit Airport congestion and possibly to start
their own bus service.
Mr. Turpen thanked the audience for their comments and suggested that
a meeting be held within the next 30 days with Interested parties so
that the details regarding the financial basis for staff's
recommendation and concerns can be explained.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airport has had a commitment since 1981 to
cost center support. The other concern continues to be vehicle
congestion as It relates to unnecessary trips. There are about
45,000 vehicle trips per day to the Airport, half of which are in
commercial vehicles. A dramatic Impact can be made on the number of
vehicles at the Airport 1f the passenger number per vehicle can be
raised.
Mr. Turpen said that a notice regarding a meeting to discuss this fee
will be sent out advising interested parties of the date and time.
The meeting will be held in the Airport's main conference room. He
said he would be happy to go through the proposal in detail, listen
to any Input, explain the Airport's concerns and hopefully come to
some conclusion. This item will then be recalendared so that the
results of that meeting can be shared with the Commission.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 9
Commissioner Fleishell agreed that there should be a delay as there
is currently a new Commissioner on board and a second one about to be
sworn in. The new members should have an opportunity to look into
the various elements involved in fee charging at the Airport. He
said that he has already spoken to this issue and has always felt
that different categories of vehicles should have different rates.
He felt that people who use the Airport because they have to provide
a service 1s one category, and people who are engaged in a direct
transportation Industry is another. This system is used at other
airports and should be used at SFO.
Commissioner Goosby said that that was the concensus of the
Commission. Staff was Instructed to split the fees but the Airport
eventually ended up with an across the board 35£ fee.
There being no other speakers Commissioner Fleishell declared the
public hearing closed at 9:30 AM.
Mayor Art Agnos arrived at the meeting at 9:40 AM to thank Commissioner
Fleishell for his 10 years of extraordinary service on the Airport's
Commission. He said that he usually has to ask what individual
commissioners have achieved prior to these ceremonies but Commissioner
Flei shell's accomplishments are so well known there was no need for an
inquiry. He said that Commissioner Fleishell participated in negotiating
the settlement that resulted in an annual service payment to the City of a
little over $10-milHon to the City's general fund. The settlement he
helped negotiate provided better opportunities for women and minorities to
enter the Airport's concession program. Mayor Agnos said that
Commissioner Fleishell also advocated free luggage carts for international
airline passengers.
Mayor Agnos said that he likes to personally thank a Commissioner when his
request to step down Is honored. He said that Commissioner Fleishell had
two years left to his term and did not have to step down. He likes to let
the public know, through his appearance, that the rotation that he asks
Commissioners to accept is not a reflection on the outgoing Commissioner.
Commissioner Fleishell will become part of the Mayor's alumnae group and
will be called on from time to time to serve the City 1n his particular
area of expertise.
Mayor Agnos thanked Commissioner Fleishell for his concern and considera-
tion and presented him with a plaque commending him for his service to the
City.
H. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission,
I. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission.
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 10
* * *
J. CLOSED SESSION:
There was no closed session.
K. ADJOURNMENT:
* * *
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM.
^Unih^fL
OeAn Caramatti
Commission Secretary
Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 11
PETITION TO AIRPORTS COMMISSION
The undersigned ground transportation operators at San
Francisco International Airport hereby petition the Airports
Commission, City and County of San Francisco as follows:
1. By letter mailed September 28, 1988, the Director of
Airports advised us that he was submitting a reguest to the
Airports Commission to guadruple and almost triple existing ground
transportation fees from $.25 and $.35 per trip to $1.00 per trip.
That letter arrived at the earliest on September 29, 1988 and gave
less than three business days as notice for the proposed action.
We object to such short notice as a violation of fundamental
fairness and a violation of our Constitutional rights of due
process under the 14th Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
2. The proposed amendment purports to include a cost
justification summary which is totally ambiguous and
uninformative. For example, over $.54 of the proposed rate is
attributed to the expense of "All other Airport Roadways." Ground
operators travel almost exclusively on Terminal Loop Roadways
which are treated as a separate expense. No definition is
included either for "Dedicated Ground Transportation Expenses"
which comprise $.36 of the proposed increase. Again, to make a
meaningful response to the proposal, it's necessary that those who
are being asked to accept these costs be fully advised of what the
expenses mean and how they were computed.
3. In a very real sense, the Ground Transportation Fee is an
improper imposition at any rate. The Ground Transportation
Operators do not increase the amount of usage of the Terminal Loop
Roadways, they decrease it. None of the Ground Transportation
Operators convince people to take airplane trips to or from San
Francisco International Airport. What the Ground Transportation
Operators do is provide larger vehicles which reduce the traffic
congestion and parking requirements at the airport by discouraging
the use of the private passenger cars. That, in effect, results
in less use of the roadway, less traffic, and less parking
problems. When the Ground Transportation Fee was enacted, that
point was acknowledged, but the fee was termed "small", and it was
indicated that it would not rise. Now the fee is increase three
and four times, it is not "small", and it is time to recognize
that instead of penalizing the Ground Transportation Operators,
the Airports Commission should be accomodating them and
recognizing the useful function that they serve.
We respectfully petition this Commission to reject the
recommendation of the Director of Airports. If the Commission has
any inclination to consider the impost ion of any change in the
fee, then we respectfully request that the matter be continued for
sixty (60) days, that the Director of Airports be required to
furnish to any Ground Transportation Operator who requests it, a
complete information packet describing the basis of computation,
and setting forth in detail each cost which is utilized in
arriving at the proposed rate.
NAME
ENTITY
ADDRESS
rapped VlfiQ***^ ^F-.rQ^il^vi Un^ "So^S fabler B^ al tv><-rx
<s-^
<££ggd /^jgcxv &&j3S&j£&ia3£. -^^ Mf/^/Fr #? s SIF ?t/ej
NAME ENTITY ADDRESS
L ^er?o ?AftW / fals jtos (Hail
gg^S&flJ VJ^'AUk 9M) 5. gf£ ^ & f«* /^
?.c* ■
/•_ ' '
// //
nfju^f fed ^_
IL^-^S-Z^L.
./{KfcLCL(j_ ^j tfc^Mf&c lift) S.frrfhuvm- Stn <?Wz
:jM^# ; - ■ ^
"r— ■ ^ <?*/££'
OCT 04 «**
3632 25tn Street ***
San Francisco, CA 94110
OctoDer 3, 1988
Airports Commission
P.O. Box 8097
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, CA 94128
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to you regarding Item 1 on the calendar for your
meeting of October 4, 1988. I ask that ray letter be made part of
any proceedings or hearings regarding the item.
I am a homeowner in the southern part of San Francisco and have been
increasingly frustrated by the dramatic increase in overflying
aircraft noise in ray neighborhood during the past several years. I
oppose the application of Canadian Airlines International for a
variance from the provision in the SFIA Noise Abatement Regulation
that requires 25% of its operation to be in Stage 3 aircraft as of
January 1, 1989.
I am aware of the factors listed in Section F(2) of the Noise
Abatement Regulation that are considered relevant in deciding
whether a variance is in the public interest. With these factors in
mind, I believe that granting Canadian's application for a variance
will not be in the public interest for the following reasons:
1. SFIA and the surrounding community will be adversely
affected by continued noise if the variance is granted;
2. It is not fair to other aircraft operators who are in
compliance with the regulation to grant a variance to Canadian;
3. Granting a variance to Canadian will provide a bad
precedent for other operators seeKing to avoid the reasonable
timetable set forth in the regulation;
4. On an industry-wide basis, compliance with the 25%
requirement after January 1, 1989, is both economically and
technologically feasible;
5. According to the regulation's Statement of Basis and
Purpose, SFIA still is not in compliance with California's noise
law, and granting a variance to Canadian therefore will make
compliance more difficult.
The Statement of Basis and Purpose recognizes that, especially in
view of the far more stringent measures enacted at some major
airports in this country, the timetable for conversion of operations
at SFIA is "entirely reasonable." (Statement, page 26.) Homeowners
such as myself who have been, and still are, being adversely
affected by aircraft noise have been asked, in effect, to accept the
regulation's timetable as a compromise and to live with the noise.
We have lived with instusive noise and, I can assure you, we
continue to do so. Canadian likewise should be expected to
effectively "live up to its end of the bargain" and comply with the
timetable.
Mwm, I ■ wL
ristopher 1H. Hall
L SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
pocuu ^ PT -
Wl-*~>^
i ... iial if-: • '**"
MINUTES
-• NOVEMBER 1, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
DR. Z. L. GOOSBY
DONALD R. STEPHENS
SHARON B. DUVALL
PATRICK A. MURPHY
LOUIS A. TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
November 1 , 1988
CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION
SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE
CALL TO ORDER: 3
ROLL CALL: 3
SPECIAL ITEM:
Election of Officers 88-0184 3
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
Update on Variance Requests 3-4
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 4
F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
2. Variance Applications - Branlff,
Evergreen & Flying Tiger
A1rl 1nes
3. Selection of Financial Advisor
4. Selection of Bond Counsel
5. Rejection of All Bids and
Authorization to Re-Bid Contract
No. 1017: Expansion of Electrical
Distribution System - Phase II- 88-0188 7
6. Award of Professional Services
Contract No. 1961: Evaluation &
Expansion of Central Heating &
Cooling Plant 88-0189 7
7. North Terminal Bookstore -
Authorization to Proceed with
Pre-Bid Conference 88-0190 7-8
8. Acceptance of Gift of $10,000
from Wool ley Foundation 88-0191 8
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
Retirement Resolution:
Roy Manuel 88-0192
88-0185
4
88-0186
4-7
88-0187
7
10. Bid Call: Contract No. 2086
Lomite/Mi 1 lbrae & Central
Pump Stations Repairs 88-0193 9
11. Bid all - Contract No. 2090:
Re-Roof Bldg. 646 (Airborne
Bldg.) 88-0194 9
12. Bid Call - Contract No. 2137:
International Terminal Terrazzo
Flooring at Customs' Waiting
Area 88-0195 9
13. Bid Call - Contract No. 2121:
Emegency Pavement Repairs (1989) 88-0196 9
14. Award of Contract No. 1943:
Cable 12AM-1 Splice Replacement 88-0197 9
15. Declaration of Emergency -
Contract No. 2139: Cable Failure
- Feeder 12BQ-1 88-0198 9-10
16. Rent Credit - Host International 88-0199 10
17. Resolution Ratifying Personnel
Actions 88-0200 10
NEW BUSINESS: 10
CORRESPONDENCE:
Free Luggage Carts in Customs 11
Update on Host Option 11
Runways 11-12
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION: 12
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
November 1 , 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:10 A.M. 1n Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present: Morris Bernstein, President
Z. L. Goosby
Donald R. Stephens
Sharon B. Duval 1
Patrick A. Murphy
C. SPECIAL ITEM:
The Commission unanimously elected Commissioners Bernstein and Goosby as
President and Vice President, respectively.
1 . Election of Officers
No. 88-0184
Commissioner Stephens moved the nomination of Commissioners Bernstein
and Goosby as President and Vice President, respectively and was
seconded by Commissioner Duval 1. The vote was unanimous.
D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS:
Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, reminded the Commission that In January,
1988 the Airport passed a new noise regulation which was designed to
encourage progressive replacement of noisy aircraft with quieter aircraft.
The regulation will require that 25 percent of each airlines operations be
with Stage III aircraft. The second provision will require that all
nighttime operations (between 1:00 AM to 6:00 AM) be performed with Stage
III operations. These provisions will take effect In January of 1989.
Mr. Turpen said that there are six airlines which have requested one or
the other of those provisions. Northwest Orient and Flying Tiger have
requested a variance from the nighttime provision. Braniff, Canadian,
Evergreen and DHL have requested variances from the daytime provision.
Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission of Its direction to hire an Independent
hearing officer to conduct these hearings. He said that the hearing
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 3
officer will render his findings of fact to the Commission through him.
He will then transmit those findings, along with his recommendations, at
the December 20 meeting, at which time the Commission will render its
decisions on those applications.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the airlines will make their
presentations to the hearing officer this week. He explained that the
burden of proof is on the applicant.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the airlines can appeal the Director's
recommendation.
Mr. Turpen responded that the airlines can dispute his recommendation
before the Commission. Ultimately, if the airlines disagree with the
Commission, they can litigate.
Commissioner Duvall asked Mr. Turpen if he felt that the amount of time
anticipated for these hearings was adequate.
Mr. Turpen responded that the format 1s fairly structured in terms of the
type of information the airlines need to provide. The bottom line is that
they must demonstrate a good faith effort toward compliance with the
regulation and that they are taking bonified measures to try and assist
the Airport in mitigating noise.
Mr. Turpen said that Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, has been
working with the hearing officer and he feels confident that the process
will go smoothly.
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY SOMMISSIONERS:
There were no items initiated by Commissioners
F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following Items were unanimously adopted.
2. Variance Applications - Braniff, Evergreen and Flying Tiger Airlines
No. 88-0185 This Item transmits to the Airports
Commission applications from Braniff,
Evergreen, and Flying Tiger Airlines
for a variance from the provisions of
the Airport's Noise Abatement
Regulation, Resolution No. 88-0016,
January 22, 1988. The Item recommends
that an independent hearing officer be
appointed to consider the applications
3. Selection of Financial Advisor
No. 88-0186 Resolution authorizing the selection
of Lazard Freres/Grisby Brandford as
financial advisor for a five-year
period.
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 4
Ms. Angels Gittens, Deputy Director, Business & Finance, said that in
March of 1988 the Commission resolved that the Airport would proceed
with a five-year contract for financial advisory services. Staff is
looking at those services in association with bond issues as well as
for Interim services over a five-year period. She said that the
Airport has several items of financial interest coming up in the next
several months and while they do not Involve a bond sale, advice and
research is needed on a couple of these financing Items.
Commissioner Goosby asked If a bond sale 1s anticipated within the
next year or two.
Ms. Gittens said that 1t will depend on the progress of the Master
Plan as well as a couple of other Items which have not yet been
brought to closure.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens If she anticipates a bond
issue.
Ms. Gittens responded that she did, explaining that there have been
discussions on a rental car structure and a transportation center
which staff is trying to get in advance of a full master plan.
Commissioner Stephens asked if the financial advisor would receive a
$40,000 retainer versus $2.00 a bond, and, 1f the retainer would be
credited back.
Ms. Gittens responded that it would be in a year in which there is a
bond sale.
Commissioner Stephens asked how this firm was selected.
Ms. Gittens said that the decision was based on five Items. A three
member panel consisting of herself, another Airport staff member and
the Financial Director of the CAO's Office interviewed seven firms
out of eleven submissions.
Commissioner Duvall asked why a five-year contract was selected.
Ms. Gittens responded that the Airport's basic capital plan is in
five year Increments. She felt that there should be some consistency
and coherency to the financing plan so the financial advisor and bond
counsel should be selected over that same period of time. She said
that this has been done previously.
Ms. Gittens reminded the Commission that the feasibility consultant,
whose responsibility It is to write an Independent report to the bond
holders on the feasibility of the project, was approved 1n June of
this year.
Commissioner Bernstein asked how large a bond Issue staff anticipated.
Ms. Gittens responded that the firms were to assume two bond Issues,
one for $80-mi 1 1 ion and one for $50-million, so as to have a
comparison of price.
Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport had money available to
cover the anticipated projects.
Ms. Gittens responded that $87-m1111on is available for current
capital projects. These funds are available under the old bond law
and are very flexible. The issue is which projects should be
financed out of the available funds. Any new financing would be done
under the new bond law which is very stringent. A judgment must be
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 5
made on each financing as to whether it should be paid with old or
new funds. Ms. Gittens used the rental car item as an example and
said that the Airport could fairly flexibly use old funds for rental
car structures but would be prohibited from using new funds. We may
want to use old funds for rental car structures and have a new issue
for other items that are part of our current capital financing plan.
Commissioner Bernstein asked if all of the Airport's current problems
are taken care of out of available funds.
Ms. Gittens responded that staff currently handles It that way.
Commissioner Bernstein felt that there would be more flexibility if
our own money 1s used as opposed to bonded money.
Ms. Gittens explained that "old" did not refer to operating money, it
referred to capital funds.
Commissioner Goosby asked about the status of the master plan.
Mr. Turpen responded that the second working paper was reviewed with
ALUC and the Regional Planing Commission of San Mateo County last
Thursday. Staff is planning to have a second public meeting in San
Francisco to seek public Input to the plan. The Master Plan will
then move into the third of four working papers.
Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction,
said that the master plan should appear before the Commission early
next year, however, the it must still go through an environmental
impact report which will probably take another nine months.
Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that it has only given approval to
distribute working paper 'B'. There will be two additional working
papers presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Murphy asked if this contemplated an exclusive right to
act as the financial advisor for a bond issue.
Ms. Gittens responded that this 1s for the financial advisor only.
It will prohibit these firms from bidding on any bonds the Airport
may want to issue. As all of our bond Issues are competitively bid,
they could not engage 1n any other financial transaction with the
Airport during this time.
Commissioner Murphy asked If they would have the exclusive right to
be the financial advisor for a bond Issue as part of this five year
arrangement.
Ms. Gittens responded that they would.
Commissioner Bernstein hoped that a memorandum would be sent to the
Commission before staff requests approval of a bond Issue.
Commissioner Duval 1 explained that we would want the funding to be in
place as the preliminary work of the second phase of the master plan
Is completed. She said that that would take a certain amount of
forward planning in order for all of the elements of the development
of the plan and the funding to be completed on a timely basis. The
proposal before the Commission is a request for approval of the
consulting services that would give the Airport the opportunity to
begin that planning that will take nine months to a year and a half.
She said that we will have the bond issues with 24 months and
bringing 1n the consulting services at this time would make that
presentation on the bond Issue even more timely to this Commission.
Minutes, November 1, 1988. Page 6
She said that the memo to which Commissioner Bernstein refers would
probably be the product of the work that would be developed by this
consulting service.
4. Selection of Bond Counsel
No. 88-0187 Resolution authorizing the selection
of Orrick, Herrlngton & Sutcl iff and
Pamela J. Jue, a joint venture, as
bond counsel for a five-year period.
Rejection of All Bids and Authorization to Re-b1d Contract No. 1017:
Expansion of Electrical Distribution System — Phase II
No. 88-0188 This work 1s the second phase of a
project to expand the 12 kilovolt
electrical distribution system
throughout the Airport to replace the
deteriorated 4 kilovolt systems and to
provide alternate electrical power
sources where only a single source 1s
available at present.
Low bidder failed to meet HRC require-
ments. Due to the large difference
between the low bid and the other
bids, staff is recommending that all
bids be rejected and the contract
re-bid.
Award of Professional Services Contract No. 1961
Evaluation and Expansion of Central Heating and Cooling Plant
No. 88-0189 Resolution approving the agreement for
professional services for Contract No.
1961 with Takahashi Consulting
Engineers, Inc., In the amount of
$243,000.00.
7. North Terminal Bookstore - Authorization to Proceed with Pre-Bid
Conference
No. 88-0190 Resolution approving leasehold
specifications and authorizing
Director to hold a Pre-Bid Conference
for the North Terminal Bookstore
Concession Agreement.
Mr. Turpen explained the concession process, from pre-bld conference
to award, to the Commission.
Commissioner Goosby explained that the appropriate time for the
Commission to offer Input on the lease would be during staff's
briefing on the pre-bid conference. These procedures are Important
because they protect the reputations of the Airport, the City and thi
Commi ssion.
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 7
Commissioner Duval 1 asked if putting ABC on a month-to-month lease
was a disadvantageous position for the concessionaire.
Ms. Gittens said that this is not an unusual transition procedure.
Commissioner Goosby asked if everything would be bid at once.
Ms. Gittens responded that the bidding would be staggered 1n order to
avoid two major concessions being down in the same area.
Commissioner Duval 1 asked if there were other airports in the country
that currently operate bookstores of this concept and magnitude.
Ms. Gittens responded that Boston, Pittsburg, Hashington National and
Dulles have similar concessions.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens how much she thought the
Airport could get in rent.
Ms. Gittens responded that that information would come out of the
pre-bid conference. She said that the Airport has been receiving
$800,000 from ABC. Staff has a suggested minimum bid for the pre-bid
conference of $500,000 or 15 percent.
Commissioner Goosby asked if this would be separate from the
Principal Concessionaire in the Hub.
Ms. Gittens responded that this lease would be separate.
Commissioner Bernstein did not think it would be possible to get
100,000 books into 2,000 square feet.
Ms. Gittens said that she believed it was possible but would be
discussed at the pre-bid conference. Staff has looked at bookstores
around the City with fairly comparable space and found that they
carry between 20,000 and 25,000 titles with 150,000 books.
8. Acceptance of Gift of $10,000 from Wool ley Foundation
No. 88-0191 Resolution accepting $10,000 gift from
Robert E. Wool ley Foundation for
Airport Exhibition and Cultural
Education Program.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Embassy Suites Hotel has
contributed $10,000 to the Airport's Temporary Exhibition Program.
The Exhibition Program has received International recognition and
great credit goes to the five or six member staff, under the
direction of Elsa Cameron, who work exhaustively to put these
exhibits Into place. He said that the positive Impact has been
tremendous.
Commissioner Bernstein said that this 1s a magnificent offer and
recognition should be given to the Embassy Suites.
Mr. Turpen said that the Embassy Suites will be recognized as the
sponsor of the exhibition selected for these funds.
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 8
G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
9. Retirement Resolution - Roy Manuel
No. 88-0192
10. Bid Call - Contract No. 2086:
Lomita/Mi librae and Central Pump Stations Repairs
No. 88-0194 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Contract No. 2086 and
authorizing the Director of Airports
to call for bids when ready.
11. Bid Call - Contract No. 2090:
Re-Roof Bldg. 646 (Airborne Bldq.)
No. 88-0194 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Airport Contract No.
2090 and authorizing the Director of
Airports to call for bids when ready.
12. Bid Call - Contract No. 2137:
International Terminal Terrazzo Flooring at Customs' Waiting Area
No. 88-0195 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Airport Contract No.
2137 and authorizing that Director of
Airports to call for bids when ready.
13. Bid Call - Contract No. 2121:
Emergency Pavement Repairs (1989)
No. 88-0196 Resolution approving the scope, budget
and schedule for Airport Contract No.
2121 and authorizing the Director of
Airports to call for bids when ready.
14. Award of Contract No. 1943:
Cable 12AM-1 Splice Replacement
No. 88-0197 Resolution awarding Airport Contract
No. 1943 to Kingston Constructors,
Inc., in the amount of $155,900.00.
15. Declaration of Emergency
Airport Contract No. 2139:
Cable Failure, Feeder 12BQ-1
No. 88-0198 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission In
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 9
declaring the emergency because of an
electrical cable serving the American
Airlines Cargo Building No. 5 has
failed, and directing the Director of
Airports to effect the necessary
repairs.
16. Rent Credit - Host International
No. 88-0199 Resolution authorizing $12,890.00 rent
credit to Host International for
Installation of Soffit 1n the North
Terminal .
Commissioner Goosby asked 1f the Airport could have done this work.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport could have done the work but as
a matter of timing, disruption and administration, the Airport
typically negotiates some type of rental credit.
Commissioner Goosby commented that even though the Airport
subsequently reimburses a tenant, 1t Is often difficult for a small
business operating at the Airport to come up with the funds to do the
work. He felt that it wouldn't hurt to have staff do some of this
work.
Ms. Glttens remarked that Airport staff recently built the shoeshine
facilities in the South Terminal.
Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that SFO was the first major
Airport to go heavily into concession development in 1979, 1980 and
1981. The North Terminal, designed in the late 1960's, early 1 970' s
and built in the mid 1970's, was not constructed for concessions. As
a result, many of our concessions 1n the North Terminal protrude into
public areas. These problems do not exist 1n the International and
South Terminals. Mr. Turpen said that he was sensitive to
Commissioner Goosby's concerns but felt that in this situation it was
easier for one person to do the whole job rather than try to
coordinate an effort.
17. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions
No. 88-0200 Resolution 1n accordance with the
requirements of San Francisco City
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and
approving certain personnel actions
taken by the Director of Airports.
H. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 10
CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Turpen shared a letter from the Mayor to the Board of Supervisors
which was in response to the question of free luggage carts in the
customs arrivals area. Mr. Turpen read two pertinent paragraphs from
that letter:
"I am returning file no. 27-88-34 regarding support for a $1.00
charge for luggage carts at San Francisco International Airport
without my signature."
The Mayor's letter goes on to state some factors and continues...
"In view of this I believe that we should consider this Issue along
with other revenue generating proposals as we review the Airport
budget In the coming year and not at the present time."
Mr. Turpen said that the Mayor has clearly made a decision on free carts
1n the customs arrival area, as he said he would. For the time being
the Mayor has elected to continue the free cart program and will take
this as an Issue within the budget process.
Mr. Turpen said that as the Commission 1s aware, Host International and
the Airport have been talking about creating some opportunities for
minority businesses and at the same time establishing some price control
mechanisms in exchange for a ten year extension. The Mayor has been
briefed on this proposal and is particularly concerned that the two new
members to the Airports Commission be fully acquainted with this
proposal. The Mayor has also requested that he be provided with some
additional information. Mr. Turpen said that he did not expect this
matter to resurface until after the first of the year. During that time
the new Commissioners will be brought up to speed and the Mayor's
specific concerns will be addressed.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the Mayor's concerns remained the same.
Mr. Turpen responded that those Initial concerns have been addressed but
other Issues have been raised by the Mayor. He said that as the City's
chief executive, the Mayor should be acquainted with all of the options
before a decision 1s made.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that at the Regional Planning Commission
meeting last Thursday night Roger Chlnn, Chairman of the Airport
Community Roundtable, asked about runway extension, development and
movement, v1s-a-v1s noise. He told the Commission that a Joint Land Use
Study was done from 1977 to 1980 comprising representatives from San
Francisco, the Airports Commission, San Mateo County elected officials,
the FAA, the airlines and the public. This exhaustive study addressed
how to mitigate the 13,400 noise Impacted homes at SF0. The study
concluded that the noise problem can be eliminated 1f one of three
alternatives Is selected. They are: 1) Reduce flight operations by 50
percent. This Is not a practical solution, especially due to the fact
that 1t would Interfere with interstate commerce. 2) Purchase the noise
Impacted homes. This is being done In Atlanta. Memphis, Nashville,
Louisville, and St. Louis, among others. This alternative was
determined to be Impractical due to the housing shortage on the
Peninsula and the types of homes involved. 3) Relocate the runways.
This would Involve moving the runways, which back up to Mi librae, out
about 3000 feet and moving the runways which direct aircraft toward Mt.
San Bruno out as well. Although the Impact of that alternative would be
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 11
to virtually eliminate the noise impact on those homes, the idea was
rejected for financial and environmental concerns. Instead, the
Airport, in conjunction with the airlines and the community, opted to
try to manage the noise impact by working towards the progressive
replacement of noisy aircraft, using the noise regulation to achieve
this goal. This alternative was successful and has reduced the number
of noise impacted homes to about 4000. Mr. Turpen said that he felt
that the noise regulation will further reduce that number.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airport Land Use Commission voted unanimously
to relocate the runways, subject to approval of their respective City
Councils. He expects a response from them In the next month or so.
Mr. Turpen said that the Airport would be pleased to examine this
alternative 1f asked but a recommendation at this point would be
premature. He felt It Important to the communities to voice their
opinions on how their concerns should be addressed. The Airport would
be prepared to do a study at that point. He said that the Issues of the
Bay environment and noise Impact as well as the Interests of all parties
must be balanced.
K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 10:05 AM to go into closed session.
■fadULUllLCCtk
Jein Caramatti
(Corimission Secretary
Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 12
3632 25th Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
October 31, 1988
Airports Commission
P.O. Box 8097
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, CA 94128
Dear Commissioners :
I am writing to you regarding Item F(2) on the calendar for your
meeting of November 1, 1988. I ask that my letter be made part of
any proceedings or hearings regarding the item.
I am a homeowner in the southern part of San Francisco and have been
increasingly frustrated by the dramatic increase in overflying
aircraft noise in my neighborhood during the past several years. I
oppose the applications of Braniff , Evergreen, and Flying Tiger
Airlines for a variance from the provisions of the SFIA Noise
Abatement Regulation.
I am aware of the factors listed in Section F(2) of the Noise
Abatement Regulation that are considered relevant in deciding
whether a variance is in the public interest. With these factors in
mind, I believe that granting these three airlines' applications for
variances will not be in the public interest for the following
reasons:
1. SFIA and the surrounding community will be adversely
affected by continued noise if the variances are granted;
2. It is not fair to other aircraft operators who are in
compliance with the regulation to grant the variances;
3. Granting the variances will provide a bad precedent for
other operators seeking to avoid the reasonable timetable set forth
in the regulation;
4. On an industry-wide basis, compliance with the regulation
is both economically and technologically feasible;
5. According to the regulation's Statement of Basis and
Purpose, SFIA still is not in compliance with California's noise
law, and granting the variances therefore will make compliance more
difficult.
The Statement of Basis and Purpose recognizes that, especially in
view of the far more stringent measures enacted at some major
airports in this country, the timetable for conversion of operations
at SFIA is "entirely reasonable." (Statement, page 26.) Bbmeowners
such as myself who have been, and still are, adversely affected by
aircraft noise have been asked, in effect, to accept the
regulation's timetable as a compromise and to live with the noise.
We have lived with instusive noise and, I can assure you, we
continue to do so. Braniff, Evergreen, and Flying Tiger likewise
should be expected to effectively "live up to their end of the
bargain" and comply with the timetable.
Sincerely,
.(lutfrpAu [llklL
Christopher H. Ball
" SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
JAN 2 5 1989
DECEMBER 6, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
DR. Z. L. GOOSBY
Vice President
DONALD R. STEPHENS
SHARON B. DUVALL
PATRICK A. MURPHY
LOUIS A. TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
December 6, 1988
CALENDAR
SECTION
A.
B.
C.
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular meetings of
October 4, 1988 and
November 1 , 1988
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Master Plan
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
88-0204
PAGE
3
3
3-4
F.
ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Proposed Increase in Ground
Transportation Fee 88-0205
Authorization to Receive Bids:
Duty Free/In-Bond Concession
Agreement
Authorization to Receive Bids
California Products Shop
Award of South Terminal
Cigarette Vending Lease
Authorization for Pre-Bid
Conference: Lease of Gate 64
Newsstand 88-0209
Award of Contract 101 7R:
Expansion of Electrical Distri-
bution System to Abbett-Yick,
A Joint Venture 88-0210
Supplemental Appropriation
Request 88-0211
Declaration of Emergency:
Contract No. 2158 - Emergency
Aviation Fuel Pipe Repair and
Decontamination Work 88-0212
4-24
88-0206
25
88-0207
25
88-0208
25
25
26
26-27
27
G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
9. Award of Contract No. 2065:
Airport Beacon 88-0213 27
10. Award of Contract No. 2121:
Emergency Pavement Repairs -
1989 88-0214 27
11. Supplemental Emergency
Appropriation, Contract No. 2130
- Upper Level Road, South
Terminal - Concrete Slab Repair 88-0215 27
12. Resolution Modifying Lease and
Use Agreement - Alaska Airlines,
Inc. - Modification No. 3 88-0216 28
PUBLIC HEARING:
13. Proposed Amendments to the
Airports Commission's Rules
and Regulations 28-30
NEW BUSINESS: 30
CORRESPONDENCE: 30
ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION: 31
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
December 6, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Morris Bernstein, President
Z. L. Goosby, Vice President
Donald R. Stephens
Sharon B. Duval 1
Patrick A. Murphy
C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of the
Commission President:
No. 88-0204
No. 88-0205
October 4, 1988
November 1 , 1988
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti ,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution nos.
88-0201, 88-0202 and 88-0203" regarding
settlements of litigated claims at the
closed session of November 1, 1988
E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen if the Master Plan hearing has been
held in San Francisco.
Mr. Turpen responded that the meeting has been scheduled for late this
month.
Commissioner Goosby asked if any sessions would be held with businesses
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 3
involved in the ground transportation aspect of the Airport subsequent to
this hearing and prior to returning to the Commission.
Mr. Turpen said that when this series of public meetings is concluded
staff will return to the Commission with a reaction to Working Paper 'B'.
Staff will then proceed with the next working paper, which will be ready
in the Spring. After that paper is published and sent to approximately
300 businesses and entities, another series of public meetings will be
held. He said that the Airport is two working papers away from a
completed master plan. The last meeting will be in conjunction with an
EIR.
Commissioner Goosby said that there is not a great deal of detail in
Working Paper 'B'. He asked if the proposal to relocate the runways will
be mentioned as a projection in the master plan.
Mr. Turpen responded that the proposed relocation of the runways will not
be included. He explained that the decision was made to divide this
process into four distinct steps and then share the results of each step
with the public. This process would avoid the impression that the Airport
was taking a leap from a cold start to a completed product and questions
would not be posed as to the foundation of the plan.
Mr. Turpen explained that the runway modification suggestion resulted from
a public review of this document. The question was asked if modifying the
runways would help mitigate noise. He said that his response to that
question was that the Commission would be pleased to look at that
possibility if the communities on the Peninsula, which were involved in
this portion of the review, wished. Those communities are taking a vote
on December 8 to request the Commission to study such a proposal.
Mr. Turpen explained that as the master plan process was scheduled to
conclude in July he did not believe that this study could be included. He
assumed that the runway modification would be another phase or an addendum
to this effort if it moved forward.
Commissioner Goosby felt that staff's idea of the cargo facility was
excellent and far reaching. He felt that the master plan should at least
refer to goals that the Commission may want to achieve.
Mr. Turpen said that the first step is a forecast of plans, the second is
the conceptual development and the third will address specific
developments and should be the most productive for everyone.
F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted as amended. The following is a
verbatim transcript of the discussion.
1 . Proposed Increase in Ground Transportation Fee
No. 88-0205 Resolution authorizing an increase in
the ground transportation fee to $1 .00
per trip for commercial and courtesy
vehicles.
Mr. Turpen: Very simoly, the Airports Commission is well aware of
the subject matter of this agenda item. A public hearing was held on
October 4. After that, on October 28, staff held a meeting with
ground transportation operators concerning the staff proposal for a
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 4
full cost recovery for ground transportation which would amount to
$1.00 per vehicle trip passing the International Terminal. That
proposal is before you now. I know there are a number of persons who
are interested in further sharing their views with the Commission in
addition to those which the Commission received on October 4. At
this time I would suggest that we hear from those interested members
of the public and go from there.
Commissioner Bernstein: There are quite a few and may I ask that in
the interest of time that we try to be as brief as possible. Where
the item has been gone over and over again that there be as little
repetition as possible. Senator Foran, would you like to lead off?
We would like to invoke a three (3) minute limit.
John Foran: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is John Foran and I'm
with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott law firm representing the
Parking Company of America. I will adhere to your admonition and
stay within the three minutes.
I forwarded a letter to all members of the Commission as well as the
Chairman, himself, as to why we object to the increase. Parking
Company of America is a satellite parking facility about two (2)
miles from the Airport. We object to this on the grounds that the
computation of costs contained within the fee is disproportionate,
certainly to the useage of Parking Company of America, as is outlined
in this letter. I have additional copies. If they are not available
I can make those available to you too.
Essentially our position is this. The satellite is about two miles
away from the Airport. The vans come to the Airport. They only go
to the upper level, they only are allowed to stop momentarily at the
blue and white zone... and I understand there's an amendment proposed
late for the restrictions on that particular zone. They are not
allowed to unload the passenger, bring the baggage into the inner
zone or into the terminal facility itself. They are more comparable
to a individual private vehicle stopping to drop off a passenger,
except that a private vehicle literally can go to the specific
airline that the passenger is going to use. This is not possible
insofar as the courtesy vans are concerned. I'm particularly making
a distinction as to courtesy vans and other types of vans. I think
the distinction, first of all is recognized at the present time and
it is not recognized in the proposed fee that is before the
Commission at this time. There is a 25£ fee for courtesy vehicles,
and a 35# fee at the present time for commercial vehicles. So there
is, presently, distinction recognized as between courtesy vehicles
and commercial vehicles.
The van uses such a limited aspect of the facilities. Nothing
inside. As a matter of fact, at one time the courtesy vans did have
the ability to have their telephone number listed in the white
courtesy phones in the airport. This is no longer the fact and
therefore they make no use of facilities, whether they be utilities,
whether they be any other types of things. They are, again, only
limited to the outer terminal loop roadway.
In the exhibits, in the letters I forwarded to the Commissioners I
have indicated that the allocation is generally to commercial and
courtesy vans altogether for approximately $1,024,907. To allocate
this type of cost, which is contained in Exhibit 'B' of the letter I
forwarded to the Commi ssion. . .operations, debt service, utilities,
administration, all of these things, for a van which simply makes one
single stop. Cannot wait. In fact, as I understand the proposal
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 5
that is before the Commission in a later item of the agenda, it
specifically says that those vans cannot wait even for a passenger
who is coming in on the lower level to come upstairs to their
vehicles. They can't even wait for that person. They have to
immediately drop off their passenger, or if there is a passenger
waiting at the blue and white zone, pick that passenger up and then
take off. They cannot even stay around to wait for a passenger to
come up from the lower level.
So, based upon the distinction that we have set forth in further
detail in the material that I've forwarded to the Commissioners and
the exhibits that I've set forward there, we strenously object to
this particular increase. The fee actually should be nominal, if one
at all, because we believe that the courtesy vans provide a service
to the passenger, a convenience to the airline passenger which is
generally designed to relieve congestion, which I understand is a
basic policy of the Airports Commission.
That's essentially the argument that we have before you. I presented
the other material in writing. If there are any questions I'd be
happy to answer them.
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Bill Lauter of the Hertz
Company.
Mr. Bill Lawder: I'm Bill Lauter, Director of Airport Concessions
for the Hertz Corporation in the Western United States.
Hertz submitted its comments in writing to the Commission and Airport
staff on November 14 and I won't bore you by going through that stuff
again. I would like to summarize that Hertz favors the ground
transportation access proposed by Airport staff particularly because
it proports to fully recover costs of facilities used by off-Airport
rent-a-car vehicles. To the extent that the present fee does not
recover those costs, on-Airport concessionaires and tenants are now
subsidizing those off-Airport vehicles.
Where we part company with staff's recommendation is that Hertz
believes that this Airports Commission should give serious
consideration to charging off-Airport rent-a-cars a percentage of
gross receipts fees. Some 40 odd airports over the last several
years have enacted ordinances or resolutions, whatever, which charge
off-airport rent-a-cars a percentage of gross revenues. Virtually
every court test to date of that has been held in favor of the
airport's right and perhaps obligation to charge that off-airport
industry based on the benefits they received from access to. the
airport which is not. .. (unintel 1 igble) ... somewhere from the access
that the on-airport rent-a-car companies have because at your request
we bus as do the off-airport rent-a-car companies.
That's Hertz position and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Dave Milton, Flat Rate Rent-A-Car.
Mr. Milton: Thank you, Mr. President and Commissioners. I'm Dave
Milton of Flat Rate Rent-A-Car and we're here to object to the rate
increase on many levels, but what I'd like to speak about is the main
impetus for the original regulations that went into force about two
years ago. The Commission, at that time, stated that Airport
congestion was the primary concern and that this fee would eliminate
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 6
that congestion. Our contention is that the congestion has not been
eliminated at all by the initial fee and increasing it to $1.00
certainly isn't going to help reduce any more congestion.
I'm sure my other colleagues that will be speaking will speak, on
other points, but that's the point I'd like to make. . .congestion is
not eliminated by these fees and we just think that they're unfair.
Commissioner Stephens: I'd like to ask you one question. Why do you
not think it would be fair for you to be paying a charge based on
revenue, as the on-airport car rental dealers are doing.
Mr. Milton: Well, our feeling is pretty strong that the on-airport
operators obviously have a competitive advantage being on the
Airport. They have a captive audience, to a certain extent. We can
offer competitive prices off Airport to give the traveler a choice,
generally at substantially lower rates. We feel that a gross
receipts tax, if you will, violates anti-trust for one thing. Our
contention from a legal standpoint is that it could very well be
unconstitutional and that it is a restraint of interstate commerce.
I'm not an expert on constitutional law. We have an attorney that
I'm sure will address that, but that's our basic contention.
Commissioner Stephens: Thank you.
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Martin Kantoff of the Hotel Association
Mr. Kantoff: Good morning. I'm Martin Kantoff. I'm an outside
consultant to the Hotel Association of San Mateo. The Airport
proudly proclaims that 30-million people a year travel through the
Airport, not including those who come to see people off or to greet
people arriving. Very justifiably so they are proud of that record
and yet we're concerned with congestion. I believe that is the main
issue that we are concerned with. Airports generate two things, and
we're all aware of that. One is noise problems and the other one is
congestion. I would like to suggest that the courtesy vehicles
provide a service to the Airport and we should be working together in
a spirit of cooperation to reduce that congestion. The raising of
fees or fines or loops or headings, no matter what definition you
want to give them, will create congestion, it will not eliminate
congestion. And that may seem strange but I think some of the
definitions have created problems. The Airport calls each trip a
heading. We understood a trip to mean one trip to the Airport. We
now understand that everytime we go before the International building
that is considered a trip. Which means when we go to the Airport to
drop someone off upstairs and then cirle around to pick up someone
downstairs, that is two headings. So we're not talking about 25£ a
trip we're talking about 50# a trip, depending on definition. This
has created problems. Quite frankly I admit that many of our members
misunderstood that and reported 25# when they should have been
reporting 500.
With the advent of the transponders going onto the vehicles a more
accurate accounting will be available both to the Airport and to the
membership. At this point you don't how much money will be
generated. We don't know how much money will be generated. The
transponders are yet to be placed on board the vehicles. I think a
reasonable amount of time should pass with the transponders in place
before you can determine how much revenue is coming in. That's one
i ssue.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 7
Another issue, unfortunately, this whole situation has been set up in
an adversarial condition. I would recommend that a committee be set
up between the ground operators and the Airport to work out these
problems in advance in a spirit of cooperation rather than one in an
adversarial position where the Airport tries to inflict rules on the
operators and the operators fight the Airport. No one knows better
what's happening at the Airport as far as ground congestion than the
operators themselves. They can make, I believe, good recommendations
to the Airport staff on how to eleviate congestion.
Another concern that we have is a new application for permit has just
been sent to the membership. It refers to rules and regulations.
How can we possibly sign an application for permit which refers to
rules and regulations before the rules and regulations are put into
effect and voted upon by this body. Obviously our membership has
declined to sign the applications for permits until we know what the
rules and regulations are. And I understand this throws off your
time schedule, which we apologize for, but it would be like asking us
to sign a blank check and you'll fill in the amount later on. So
that's why a lot of the permits have not been filed as yet.
Thirty-million people a year passing through this Airport boils down
to a little better than 85,000 a day going back and forth through the
Airport. There is nobody that I know of who ever left one
destination to go to another destination whose left from an airport.
They leave from their homes, they leave from their office, they leave
from their hotel. Obviously there's got to be a way to move those
people from those points to the Airport and then again from the
Airport back to their final destination. We admit that we are
possibly a cause of some part of the congestion. We are willing to
work out a program with the Airport to try to relieve that. Another
portion of the congestion is the airline scheduling. There are less
planes landing and taking off at the Airport now than there were
several years ago, however, now they're wide-body planes where you
have a greater amount of people getting off and on at the same time.
Obviously this creates congestion.
I made a suggestion to staff at the Airport three or four weeks ago
which I felt would address both the issues of raising revenues and
reducing congestion. As far as I know, because of Mr. Turpen's
travel plans, those recommendations were never brought to his
attention. I do have copies of that proposal here with me and I
would like to at least submit them to the Commission for your
review. (See Attachment I) Basically what this is a two-tiered
pricing system. With the transponders in place I believe you'll find
that you'll be able to monitor traffic alot better now than you ever
were in the past. And what I'm suggesting is this. ..and if you'll
look at the second page I think it will give you an idea of -what I'm
talking about. We're looking at peak travel periods and off-peak
travel periods. What we're suggesting is that each hotel that
operates a courtesy van be restricted to that amount of trips to the
Airport and for that they pay the 25?! fee which they are presently
paying. If they violate that and they go beyond that amount they
should be penalized and they should be penalized by raising that fare
within that group hour to 500. That would prohibit the hotels, or
anybody else for that matter, from exceeding the amount of trips that
we feel is fair to give a quality level of service to the traveling
publ ic.
I'm sorry, I prepared for this for about three weeks and I'm a little
nervous.
I would like to answer any questions regarding this that you possibly
may have. I feel that it's a good compromise but I would like to
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 8
state again that I would like to see a committee formed between the
Airport and some members of the ground access people to be able to
work out these problems well in advance so that it never reaches the
stage of frustration that you see today. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Goosby: The members of your association, have they ever
contemplated pooling their van service or does each hotel have its
own courtesy van?
Mr. Kantoff: At this time each one has their own courtesy vans and
quite frankly that opens up a can of worms. We have considered and
we have discussed putting together a bus line that would service all
of the hotels and although on the surface that sounds like a solution
it created more busses, more problems because of the locations of the
hotels... how often would they be served. As you know, now you have a
hotel on Airport property, which quite frankly sets up a competitive
situation. Many of the hotels feel that they have to keep up with
that competition by sending their vans as often as they can in order
to compete with the Hilton Hotel, who is one of our members. And we
recognize that nothing can be done about that situation, nor are we
recommending that anything be done about it. But a private bus line,
or one that services all of the hotels, has been considered. At this
time it has been rejected because it would not serve the purpose of
reducing congestion.
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Bill Hurtado of the Good
Neighbors organization.
Mr. Hurtado: I have been a driver for ground transportation now
since 1986, the very first of 1986, and there was traffic congestion
at that time at the Airport. A fee was raised at that time and it
was stated that this fee would help reduce traffic congestion at the
Airport. Apparently that wasn't the case. Now, another proposal for
a rate increase has been made and I don't believe that it's going to
reduce traffic. The traffic congestion happens because of the
Airport Police not allowing on many occasions for the van services to
pull into the pick up zones. When there are passengers coming out of
the terminals the passengers aren't physically at the pick up point
so the vans aren't allowed to pull up. The Airport Police blows
their whistle. . .continue to go around. In that case they have to go
around. You have many van services up there and if these vans have
to go back around you're going back into the traffic. You have
private sector people dropping off friends and relatives who are
coming into the Airport and you have a big file of vans coming back
around again. A rate increase, I don't believe is going to reduce
the traffic. Some kind of proposal for allowing the vans moments,
three to five minutes to actually sit at the terminals for these
passengers to come out. Once the vans are loaded the vans are out of
the Airport and that in itself will reduce traffic. I don't believe
a fare increase is going to alleviate the traffic congestion. There
are a lot of vans out there, there are a lot of passengers every day,
but there again, if the vans have to continue to circle until there
are passengers, that in itself creates some traffic problems.
Another thing, adding the gate charge for the van services is going
to put a heavy burden on the smaller companies who operate at a very
small or no profit margin at times. That's going to hurt a lot of
passengers that rely on Good Neighbors, especially. We have a lot of
people that call us from the Airport and want to use our service but
because they aren't physically at the terminal yet and we have to go
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 9
around, other services solicit and take those people away from us.
We lose a fair amount of business because of that. If we were
allowed to stay there and wait for our passengers and not have to
keep going around, that in itself would help eliminate a lot of the
traffic congestion. Thank you.
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Brian Luterman, National Car Rental.
Mr. Luterman: Good morning, Commissioners, my name is Brian
Luterman, senior attorney for National Car Rental and we are an
on-Airport concessionaire at SFO. I'm here this morning to speak in
favor of the proposal put forth by Director Turpen and his staff. As
Hertz has pointed out this is a relatively minor .. .(tape was changed
at thi s point) . . .
...and we think that the structure of this proposal is an especially
logical one for this airport given the congestion problems that exist
here, and, it meets a particular concern from National's standpoint
and that is the ability to get our buses through the traffic and pick
up our customers. That's a problem now as we all know. So, for
those reasons we strongly support the resolution that's before you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Janine Reisbig.
Ms. Reisbig: My name is Janine Reisbig and I'm in charge of Sales
and Marketing for Good Neighbors Airport Shuttle and I'm going to
speak on Item Fl , the fee hike. I've been in the ground transporta-
tion business for a couple of years. I was a SuperShuttle driver,
then I was a Good Neighbors driver and now I'm in Sales and Marketing
for Good Neighbors. As you all know we've recently gone from being
the "neighborhood shuttle service", operating west of Divisadero, to
service all over town. In my travels as Sales and Marketing person
I've talked to hundreds of travel agencies, visited a lot of hotels
and I've found many, many, many loyal Good Neighbor customers all
over town, both downtown, even in Herb Caen's office. His office
assistant loves Good Neighbors and takes us all the time. We operate
on a shoe string. Any fee hike threatens our existence and could
deprive literally thousands of San Franciscans from their choice of
shuttle bus services.
As to the fee hike reducing traffic congestion, one of our drivers
has already spoken to that. We are forced to go around many, many
times. Often we can see our potential customers coming out -of the
terminals but they can't run fast enough with their luggage to come
and get us and so they think that we're ignoring them or something
like that and then they get snatched up by other companies.
My proposal is that the Airport Commission to reduce traffic
congestion at the Airport, much of the congestion is provided by
private operators. . .operators of private cars who are dropping off
their friends. My proposal is that the Airport Commission should
fund a postcard mailing to all San Francisco residents advising them
of ways to get to the Airport other than driving their private car
because these shuttles can carry seven people. Therefore, you can
reduce the number of private cars carrying one individual by using
the shuttles. This would reduce traffic congestion going to the
Airport.
Also, if we had a decent pick up plan worked out with the Airport
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 10
Commission that would allow us, as Bill says, to wait three minutes
at each stop for people so that they can get a chance to see us and
come and approach us, then we wouldn't have to make so many loops.
Thank you, very much.
Commissioner Bernstein: Willie Billingsly, Airport Passenger, Inc.
Mr. Billingsly: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Willie Billingsly from
Airport Passenger, Inc. in Stockton and the reason we object to this
...I guess we're one of the furthest carriers and we service most of
the airports in Northern California and naturally with this increase,
we are already paying one increase already to the Airport Commission
and this would create another financial burden on the carrier. We
have to take into consideration a number of things. The distance
that we travel, and naturally when you increase a financial burden
then that financial burden has to be passed on to someone. Naturally
we don't have anyone to pass it on to except the customers. We were
talking about the congestion at the Airport and this is something
that we're trying to eliminate. Fortunately, we've been working with
a number of the travel agencies throughout the valley and there's so
much that the companies can bear and at times when you get to the
peak of a financial situation then you have to do something
different. So, naturally we would object to this because of the
distance that we have to travel and we have to take everything under
consideration, including the bridge crossing each time, and this sort
of thing. And, one of the previous speakers spoke about what some of
the other airports are doing. I have done extensive traveling in the
last few years and being in the business I make it my business to
contact the other shuttle carriers at the airport just to find out
what they are doing and I have not found as many restrictions in some
of the other airports as we have at the San Francisco Airport. So
this is one of the reasons that we are objecting to this because it
would create a financial burden on a lot of the carriers that are in
the outlying areas. Thank you.
Commissioner Murphy: Excuse me, I have a question. How many trips a
day do you make to the Airport?
Mr. Billingsly: Approximately ... sometimes this could even run into
four or five trips a day.
Commissioner Murphy: Is that your average or is that your maximum?
Mr. Billingsly: That would be the maximum.
Commissioner Murphy: What would your average be?
Mr. Billingsly: The average would be three trips per day.
Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Grace Hughes, Marin Airporter.
Ms. Hughes: Good morning Commissioners. I'm here today to appear to
speak to the proposal for an increase of operator permit fees. We're
aware of the need for cooperative responsibility but feel the
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 11
proposal, as it has been presented to you, would really impose an
unreasonable financial burden on the operations of Marin Airporter,
specifically. It would create an unreasonable fee increase on Marin
Airporter specifically and really all the ground transportation
operators in general .
There are a number of issues regarding the computation of fees that
concern us. For example, the roadway use, private auto allocated
cost, and the underlying philosophy of ground transportation support.
However, without belaboring those points, they really deserve a much
more extended dialogue. I would like to propose a plan that I feel
could address the question before us.
It is my understanding that the AVI program is about to be launched
and indicates a real possibility that revenues to the Airport will be
increased with the initiation of improved monitoring and collection
methods. I would ask that the imposition of any new fees be tabled
for at least 90 days after the start of the AVI system and the
results of the program then be evaluated as to the level of increase,
if any, that might be negotiated.
The staff has indicated in their presentation that you are concerned
with another delay. I would ask that you consider that a delay of 90
days would, in the long run, be beneficial to working out an
equitable as well as less confrontational agreement with the
possibility of substantial information being made available to all
concerned. I would also ask you, Commissioners, to consider the fact
that scheduled ground transportation services really do work to
reduce Airport congestion in general, and certainly curb access in
particular. In our case we carry over 300,000 passengers a year and
that cooperation both in policy planning and financial assessment
must be, and I assume you would agree, must be fair and mutually
supportive. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Murphy: May I ask a question? What is the size of your
vehicle.
Ms. Hughes: They are 47 passenger vehicles.
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank You. Mr. Andy DePaule, Good Neighbors
Airport Shuttle.
Mr. DePaule: Thank you for letting me speak today. I have a couple
of questions. Many things have been brought up at this mee-ting today
which I had wanted to address but there is no need to keep addressing
the same items. Particularly, I think the fees should be held off
until the automatic counting process has been in effect for a period
of time so we can see how many vehicle trips there actually are at
the Airport.
One problem I have with this is the new permit that we've been asked
to sign. The problem I have with this is we have to apparently sign
this permit before we can get these counting devices on the vans.
I'm more than willing to have the device put on my vehicles but I'm
not so willing to sign this permit which takes away a number of my
rights. ..I believe constitutional rights. There's an item in there
where my business, if I should drop dead right now, cannot be passed
on to anybody in my family. The permit expires with me. Now, that's
not the way I understand normal businesses. I doubt if any
Commission members who had their own business would want to operate
under this permit and some of the restrictions in it.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 12
There's another problem in that there's a request that we recognize
that the Airport is private property. Now, I understand. . .1 know Mr.
Turpen's view as that... I admire him, he does a good job there. I
don't happen to think that the Airport is private property. The
Supreme Court has gone both ways on it. I'm not a lawyer so I can't
judge. But, to my view, private property is when you shut a roadway
down for 24 hours once a year... you then have a private roadway. The
fact that you just name it a private roadway and don't fill out the
minimum requirements does not make it private. If a person were to
go to the Airport, stand in the terminal and undress themselves they
wouldn't be arrested for being naked in private, right? It would be
in public. It's a public place.
Mr. Turpen: Unless you did it on the roadway,
Mr. DePaule: If you did it on the roadway would it be a private
undressing? No.
There's another problem. You have to dress at least as well as a
taxi driver. I don't know what that is. I don't know if the new
Commission is aware but you can lose your permit for not coming up to
these standards.
Vulgar language. The Supreme Court can't decide what vulgar language
is. Mr. Turpen is allowed to. Now, I would probably agree with him
on what vulgar language is but I still don't think that he,
individually, should have that right especially to throw me out of
the Airport because anybody who represents me may use what he or any
other Airport official terms to be vulgar language.
I wonder if we could go ahead and have the counting devices put on,
hold up the signing of this permit until accurate counts are given.
Also, we've asked for an accounting from the Airport to justify that
the cost of that they say we are imparting on the Airport by our
operations there is, in actual fact, a cost because what we have
gotten is essentially a breakdown of cost but it doesn't give an
itemized list. There's items in the cost such as building
maintenance. We use no buildings at the Airport other than the three
out houses in the parking lot. There are a lot of little things like
that and I just think the thing needs a lot more time. I'm not
opposed to paying a fee that's fair but I don't think a $1.00 is fair
and I think that if the accounting were properly opened up to public
scrutiny I think we would find that there's not the kind of cost
related.
There was one other thing that may be slipping my mind.
Commissioner Bernstein: Take your time. I think you should have
unlimited time.
Mr. DePaule: I do feel that signing the permit is a form of
coercion. We are being forced to sign this because if we don't sign
it we simply do not operate after January 1. So that means we either
sign away these rights that, without being a lawyer I feel I
shouldn't be signing it away as a citizen.
Commissioner Goosby: Haven't you signed permits before this?
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 13
Mr. DePaule: Under the same circumstance, yes. When I started
operating at the Airport we paid $300.00 a year, a bargain, I'll
admit, for the right to operate. I went upstairs, I was sent to Mr.
Ed Lanzilla. He wrote a note that nobody could read that essentially
said give this man a sticker. I went downstairs to a lady named
Eunice who has a big sign in her office that says you've got to smoke
there. She issued me permits. Then, the new plan came in, which Mr.
Stephens voted the 35£ on. We had no choice. It was either sign or
don't operate.
Commissioner Goosby: But you signed it, right?
Mr. DePaule: Isn't that being forced to sign? We didn't get to sit
down with anybody and hack out what the agreement was. We just
agreed to the Airport's terms. This is the same thing again and it's
taking more steps in the same direction of taking away rights that we
have. That's what worries me.
The only thing is there's a time limit on this. This is my last
thing. We need to get our counting device between the 2nd and the
16th of December, according to the time schedule. So that means that
I have to have this signed and at the Airport by the 16th and all my
vehicles tagged by then. If I don't agree to it by the 16th, which
is only a few days away, then I have to wait until after January 1
and an appointment period to get this done so that means that I could
be put out of operation, as I understand it, until I agree to sign
this, if I don't agree to sign it before the 16th. And it really
hasn't gone back and forth nearly enough.
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. The only problem is that I think
Mr. Turpen is liable to take you seriously. Thank you very much for
being here. Mr. Richard Pohl of the Good Neighbors Shuttle.
Mr. Pohl: One of the costs cited in the reasons for the increased
fee is the cost of the Airport Police who, from my position as a
driver, their main function appears to be to force us to go around
and around more times at the Airport and pay more fees. There is
some purpose to what they're doing, that's for sure, but they
definitely mainly seem to be there to make us go around more and pay
more fees for circl ing.
Also, I think that the fees that we have been paying... I think it's
unbel ieveable that the map's down... in the Airport there's these
guides that say how to get anywhere in the Bay Area on public
transportation and nowhere on those guides are the shuttle vans
listed. Nowhere in the Airport except in a sort of obscure way that
says pre-arranged transport, or something like that. Pre-arranged
transit, and little arrows maybe. Maybe a couple of those now but
basically we're paying all these fees to the Airport and as far as I
can see the Airport is not showing or telling anyone where to come
and find our services, and that seems to be fairly odd considering
the amount of money that we're paying to the Airport.
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. David Birenbaum of the
Ground Transportation Association. You're the attorney for them?
Mr. Birenbaum: Yes. Commissioners this is a newly formed group
consisting of a number of kinds of operators. We discussed a number
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 14
of things today. I won't recover the area. The basic things that
have been discussed are traffic, the contents of the application and
cost. There is one thing that, for some reason, hasn't been
discussed. I'm not sure if it's even within the purview of the
personnel at the Airport.
I think we owe it to the people who are there, who are operating
these transportation facilities, we owe it to them to study the
financial impact this move would have on them, whether it would cause
them to go out of business or not. Some of these clients, some of my
clients have been in operation for at least 28 to 30 years. I dare
say at that time some of the present Airport Administration staff
probably were in their mid-teens, 15 or 16 year old people at the
time my clients were forging their way over dusty roads. Twenty-five
years the Airport was torn up. We all remember that. That caused
incredible traffic problems. Several of my clients were bringing
their vehicles in at that time and providing transportation. They
grew with the Airport. These are not people who are here trying not
to pay their way. They have built a business. Their families depend
on it, there are numbers of employees who would be put out of work if
they go out of business. Nowhere has the Airport, in my awareness,
studied the financial impact on the people who are there doing
business now. Will they be permitted to stay in business? What does
it mean for them to have to raise their fees to come close to the big
five? For example, I represent a number of car rental agencies.
They are on the Airport. They pay large fees, they enjoy many
privileges for those large fees. As we get closer, as we have to
raise our rates, what will that do to competition? Will it force my
clients, many of them, out of business? The present Airport staff
cannot tell you that for they simply haven't studied it.
I would like to think that efficiency is one goal of democracy.
That's only one. The most efficient forms of government are absolute
dictatorships. We hope we don't have that. Another goal of a
democracy, really, is to see to it that everyone benefits equally,
properly and justly. And I would request that a study be made in
addition to traffic, in addition to efficiency, a study be made on
the financial impact on people who have families they're supporting,
who've been in business for nearly 30 years, many of them, put all
that into the hopper, mix that together and then come up with a
plan.
Twenty-five years the public stayed away from the Airport because
there were horror stories. Those of us who remember the early days
when they started the major reconstruction in the late 40' s you
couldn't get into the Airport at times. It wasn't the fault of
ground transportation operation. It was the fault of the Airport.
The present plans still haven't been completed according to "the
Airport master plan. There's going to be more construction. They're
many reasons for delays. That's ony one factor. I would just
earnestly request study the financial impact on the people who are
there as well as traffic, as well as the contents of the application,
as well as cost and not just try to do something because it sounds
good. This has not been studied. This has not been properly
studied. Thank you.
Commissioner Bernstein: Just a minute Mr. Birenbaum. Are there any
questions?
Commissioner Murphy: Yes, I have a question. Mr. Birenbaum, are you
suggesting that for some users it might be appropriate to charge a
percentage of gross revenue as a user fee rather than a fixed fee.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 15
Mr. Birenbaum: No. I am not sure, Mr. Commissioner, I'm not sure.
I don't have the answers because like the present Airport staff, I
haven't studied it either. I think that if it were studied properly
maybe some kind of, I don't know. I feel something undoubtedly
can... well, first of all, I'm not sure about the need. I'm not sure
the need has been established financially. I have seen varying
figures. I have read the Airport's financial statements for the last
five, seven years. I have read traffic studies, such as they are,
such as the traffic studies have been. I'm not sure what the need
is. I'm not sure, for example, the Airport Administration can't tell
you now what basis they're really using to fairly allocate this
cost. The answer I have gotten or I've heard at meetings is we're
using the same system we use to charge airplanes. Every time there's
a landing we charge a fee. Something on that nature. That isn't
necessarily fair. The vehicles that travel these roadways are of
differing weights. They have different passenger loads. There has
never been one study, not one technical study in this area. The
Airport has provided no figures, despite the fact that my clients
have asked numbers of times. I don't know the answer to your
question. I'm not suggesting it at all. All I know is the entire
thing should be studied. In the past I have reviewed numbers of
studies that have cost the Airport a fortune. I have reviewed
traffic studies, airplane transportation studies, very few of these
were ever used. They cost the Airport a lot of money. One study
that should be done is a study, an authoritative work on the impact
on the businesses that have existed at the Airport for a number of
years that have provided a valuable service to the Airport. Ten
years ago my clients were desperately needed. Now they may not be
needed so much but they provide a very valuable service. So the
answer is I don't know until it's studied and I can't recommend that
because I just don't know. But I don't think the Airport does
either.
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Birnbaum, you've made some very
compelling arguments but I must correct one or two things. You give
the impression that we go willy nilly, how do we make more money?
And that isn't necessarily so. I've been on this Commission a long
time and some fellow Commissioners here who've been with me and we've
never acted precipitously. Studies have been made constantly and one
of the reasons that we make studies constantly is that we find it
very difficult getting the truth. I've often thought that there
ought to be a sign somewhere along the line that reads, "San
Franci sco Airport, where the truth is unknown."
The Commissions I've been on in this City and particularly on this
Commission, the last ten or twelve years, have always been
considerate of those people that use the Airport and need it for a
living and I wouldn't want that impression to go forward that we
don't care. We've been in constant consultation as to how to do this
thing and want to do what's right. Authoritative. I don't think
there's an authoritative study on any airport in the world. There
are studies but how authoritative in the context that you mean it, I
don't know. But we are trying. But if you want us to give you the
truth we can only give you the truth based upon the truth that we
get. I'm putting this as bluntly as I can.
Mr. Birenbaum: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, my comments were
not meant to. . .
Commissioner Bernstein: And I don't have too much of a reputation
for hiding things.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 16
Mr. Birenbaum: My comments were not meant, not even inferential ly,
to suggest that this Commission has displayed any kind of callousness
towards the people that are there. I don't even think the Airport
Administration is callous. I think the driving goal of the
Administration of the Airport is efficiency, for which we used to
give awards. I'm just saying I don't think... the Commission has been
extremely considerate in the past, extraordinarily so.
Commissioner Bernstein: I know, but I wouldn't want the inference to
go forward about either this Commission or the employees. We've
built $500-mi 1 1 ion of construction. It was a big, big business and
there hasn't been one scandal in this Airport in 15 years. What
there was 40 years ago I don't know. I used it 40 years ago, too. I
know what you're referring to. But I don't think that there should
be an inference that we don't care or that there's any other nonsense
connected with it. I resent that very much.
Mr. Birenbaum: Such an inference wasn't meant Mr. Chairman. So,..
Commissioner Bernstein: Staff makes studies all the time and for my
$100 a month I put in enough time.
Mr. Birenbaum: Mr. Chairman, the inference wan't meant. It's just
that I have asked. . .there have been, to my knowledge, no studies at
all made of the financial impact of this move on the existing
businesses. That's all. I'm not saying this represents an
indifference. I'm just simply saying that there has been no study
made.
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you very much, Mr. Birenbaum. The
last speaker is Paul Grosz of the Yellow Airport Service.
Mr. Grosz: Good morning. I'd like to cover a couple of things that
haven't been mentioned here. This grounds been covered over and
over. I'm currently the Director of Yellow Airport Service which is
a pretty large van transport operator at the Airport and I kind of
see these things in the day-to-day fashion and I just wanted to let
you know how I see this and what's going to happen when and if this
goes in just from an operational standpoint.
First of all we're going to have to do less loops with each van.
That's kind of obvious because it's going to cost more. So; we're
either going to have to get more vans in order to continue to
efficiently serve the public or, obviously if we don't buy them our
competitors will buy more vans and one way or the other all of those
people will get served, but by making us limit the loops my vans will
leave with one person instead of with three, with four or with five,
which is the first bad effect, which will financially force us to
make the Airport more congested. We're all just going to have to buy
more vans.
Commissioner Goosby: Why will you have to make... if you're going to
leave with one person instead of three because of this you say,
because you're going to try to make fewer loops.
Mr. Grosz: Unless we change our fare structure the loops will take
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 17
so much of the profit out that it will actual ly. . .the driver will
have to leave with one because the amount he'll make if he only picks
up the second passenger or doesn't pick up the second passenger on
the second loop will actually make us be losing money if we don't
leave with less passengers. But that's not going to cut down the
30-million people who are going to come in this year, it just means
we're going to have more vans doing one loop at a time.
Now, there's a second problem there which also, I feel, hasn't been
covered. I started out in the van business as a driver and I kind of
still tend to see things that way. I know that leaving with one
means I'm going to make less money. It means the same thing for
every one of my drivers. Currently, the drivers that we have are as
well dressed and as well mannered, in all honesty, as we can afford
to pay and when the drivers begin to make less I just have a personal
fear that what will happen is the general skill of my drivers and
everyone else in this business will decrease because the pay level
will have gone down. They will be looking for better jobs, the
customers will get worse and ruder service, there will be more
accidents, both for us and on Airport property and I really feel
that. ..I obviously don't. ..it hasn't happened yet so I don't have the
statistics in front of me but I am sure that what will happen is the
Airport will just get tied up with more and more accidents. I'm kind
of out of points here.
Commissioner Goosby: How much do you pay? Do you know what your
company now pays?
Mr. Grosz: I know precisely what we pay, sir. We balance minium
wage against commission. Drivers who make minimum wage do not last
with us more than a few weeks. I would say as an average our drivers
are taking down, for an eight hour shift, they're making about $75.00
for a par-for-the-course driver, which is well above minimum wage.
Commissioner Goosby: No, I mean how much do you pay in your 35£
charge for passing, how much do you pay in a month?
Mr. Grosz: I would say it's between $2000 and $2500. It really
depends on the month. It can go as high as, I believe, $2600 in one
of the summer's busy months and can be considerably lower.
My last point... this has been mentioned. . .but I would just like to go
on record as saying that I would feel really bad about being forced
to sign a blank check, as well. If nothing else, the studies that
have been bandied back and forth that have been made or haven't been
made, the AVI is going on this month... this would be the perfect time
to have a pertinent study to the situation so I would like to go on
record as asking for 90 days to see what the figures entail.
Commissioner Goosby: We may make a decision today with some
revisions which will clarify that and might make some of the things
more pallitable to the industry. But, if we make that decision
you'll know what you're signing. If you have some... I think I have
some concerns. . .there are parts of that permit that offer
some... (tape was changed at this point)...
...let staff look at those to see if there could be some corrective
language such as passing it onto your heirs or your parnter,
whatever, I don't know. But I think that the Commission would look
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 18
at that sympathetically. I don't think that that should be an
issue. I think signing the permit... you know you're going to have to
sign the permit because we expect you to fulfill certain obligations
and that's our way of you expressing it and you make a commitment
that you're going to follow these rules and regulations so that we
have a certain... I don't think that there's any serious argument
between us on that. If there's one or two small items that have to
be adjudicated I think the Commission will look at those.
Mr. Grosz: That's more than fair. In all honesty I don't know how
all of these things work. I know how to run vans. I really came to
speak for the drivers and also to ask for the 90 days, really briefly
at the end, just to have time to figure out how I'm going to run my
company when all this stuff changes because I'm just going to have to
revise everything we do. I need the 90 days to stay in business.
Thank you.
Commissioner Duvall: Excuse me, can you tell me what your average
passenger per vehicle trip is today.
Mr. Grosz: I can estimate it but I certainly wouldn't want to swear
in first. I would say we're probably right now running between 2.5
and 4. Again, this is seasonal and this is averaged out over say the
course of the month.
Commissioner Duvall: Do you peak out at four? What's the capacity
of your vehicles?
Mr. Grosz: No. Again, depending. . .1 don't want to start dragging in
all kinds of complicated things. I'm sure my business seems more
complicated to me than it does to you. On a good day we're averaging
six, on a bad day we're averaging one. We're averaging that. It's
bal lpark.
Commissioner Duvall: Okay, that's helpful. But, what's the capacity
of your vehicles?
Mr. Grosz: We have seven and 10 passenger vehicles but we're moving
mainly to seven passenger vehicles for economic reasons. Thank you.
Commissioner Bernstein: That's it. Any recommendations?
Mr. Turpen: I look to the Commission for any thoughts or questions
the Commission might have for either me or the staff. Our
recommendation has been before the Commission at the public hearing
and, of course, the intervening period. I know the Commission has
studied it and would look to the Commission for any views or thoughts
you might have or any questions that you might want to direct to us
prior to continuing this matter.
Commissioner Duvall: Well, I think one of the things that's very
important for us to consider is the installation of the AVI and the
importance of that information that not only the Airport staff but
the Commission and probably, most importantly, the operators and
particularly the management of the operators will learn as a result
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 19
of the compilation of data. I do think that we probably want to
amend the staff's recommendation before we...
Mr. Turpen: You're talking about some type of delay or phase-in
peirod or something.
Commissioner Duval 1: I think we probably will.
Commissioner Stephens: I know I'd like to see a reduction in the
amount the staff is asking for for the time being. I think overall
what my feeling would be is that I'd like to see what happens with
the AVI and see what kind of count we've been getting from the
people, I guess doing it on a volunteer basis in the past. I'm very
much inclined to have us look at moving to some kind of a revenue
sharing basis for the off-site rental cars. I think that some very
good cases were made in the things that were sent to us to show that
we're really not getting. . .the Airport's not getting its share and
the off-site rental cars are not really paying their share when you
compare it to what the on-site rental cars are paying. On the other
hand I think it ought to be something scaled down somewhat. I think
there certainly is an advantage to having an on-site... of having the
position that Hertz has versus the position that an Alamo has but I
think that they're a little far apart.
I guess my suggestion would be that we move to either 60tf or 700 on
the per head heading charge sometime after the first of the year.
Commissioner Goosby: This three month moratorium that they speak to,
maybe make it come or have the charges start in May, which would give
you an opportunity to look at the electronic counting mechanism. So
that in May... and to go along with the reduced charge which will
cover their operations until the end of the year at which time we can
go to the full $1.00. I think I would agree with both of the
observations of both Commissioners and I think that also to have
those... I have been concerned, even two years ago when we first
passed this. To have a double system of charges for those people to
have courtesy vans versus those who make their living carrying
people. Roughly half the applicants, half the companies who do this
might be served by having a certain number of passes, or heads as you
call them, free per month so that they would have or which would
hopefully give those operators who are providing more of a service
than a professional movement of people, give them some advantage in
that they would have a certain number of passes that would be
free... 40, 50 or 60 per month. That would take the blunt or the edge
off of the cost to them. Those are some of the comments that I would
throw out.
Commi sssioner Stephens: That would help the small businesses.
Mr. Turpen: And before that, some type of flat, at least annual
permit fee just to cover our administrative costs.
Commissioner Stephens: Right. The big ones, the SuperShuttles,
would pay the same permit fee as the smallest one would and both of
them would get the same number of free trips around the Airport so
that SuperShuttle would get just as much for its money as the other
one would but for the small operator it would represent a smaller
portion of hi s costs.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 20
Commissioner Goosby: And the cost per... but everybody pays a minimum
per year registration fee, which I've heard suggestions of figures
around $25.00 but I think that for 60 free rides, maybe that should
be $35.00, $40.00 or $50.00 a minimum permit fee for everybody to
pay. I think that can be looked at as you put the whole package
together. $25.00 seems to be very reasonable.
Commissioner Stephens: I also would like to see us, rather than
establish a two-stage charge right now, or whether we go to 600 or
700 now is to make the move to either the 600 or 700, and I'm kind of
open... I guess if it were mine I'd probably say 600 but I don't think
I'd argue with 700... is to go with 600. I don't see a reason to wait
until May but that's also not another major point with me. But not
to have it go automatically to $1.00, but if we're going to implement
sometime after the first of the year I guess my preference would
probably be to start it at the first of the year or shortly after
that and then take a look at three things together. Take a look at
increasing it to $1.00, take a look at the results of the AVI when
that gets in place and look into some kind of revenue sharing basis
with the off-Airport contributors somewhere along the lines of what
Stapleton's doing, which I think is at about... my understanding is
that our own airport pays 10.
Mr. Turpen: Ten percent on Hertz.
Commissioner Stephens: Is that we maybe look at something in the six
to seven and a half for the off-Airport so that it evidences to the
off-Airport people that the on-Airport purveyors pay a higher
percentage although both of them are paying a percentage of revenue.
Commissioner Goosby: So that they wouldn't be paying a per heading
cost.
Commissioner Stephens: That would be in lieu of.
Commissioner Bernstein: We are at a continuing study of this thing,
aren ' t we?
Mr. Turpen: Well, we've been studying ground transportation for as
long as I ' ve been there.
Commissioner Bernstein: Have we come to definite conclusions?
Mr. Turpen: From what the Commission has said let me offer a
subtantive thought. I just checked with Angela and she's indicated
to me that $25.00 would, in fact, cover our administrative costs of
processing the permit. So, might I suggest the fol lowi ng. . . that all
ground transportation persons would pay an annual permit fee of
$25.00. Secondly, that we continue with the current rate structure
through, I think Dr. Goosby said May 1, at which time it would move
to 700, it was suggested, on May 1.
Commission Stephens: Why are we waiting until May 1?
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 21
Mr. Turpen: I was just trying to capture some of the thinking of the
Commission.
Commissioner Stephens: If we're going to do it, what's the theory?
Commissioner Murphy: For what it's worth, my view is that there is a
decent argument that a number of witnesses have made that we want to
see how the AVI system works. This will also give people a chance to
phase this in, adjust their businesses, figure out the impact on
them, so it seemed to me a delay to May 1 seemed appropriate.
Mr. Turpen: All right. I think from the standpoint of us taking a
look at the results of the AVI output, if you will, in terms of what
that is, I think that May 1 would be reasonable. Then, as I
understand it, Dr. Goosby had indicated that next January 1, for
example, go to $1.00 if the AVI system, the number of trips, the
revenue generated based on our cost recovery warranted that as the
number.
Commissioner Bernstein: Where would you go on May 1?
Mr. Turpen: 70£.
Commissioner Bernstein: In other words, present rate until May 1.
Then IQt until the first of the year and then $1.00, assuming that
the studies show it.
Mr. Turpen: For example, if our cost recovery number, just to take a
number, is $1,000 for example and we find out that based on vehicle
trips and reporting and just the system that we've had has not been
real accurate and we find out that we're recovering back costs based
on the number of trips, then obviously that $1,000 is going to be
picked up much more rapidly and we won't need to go to $1.00 a trip.
So, I think that the advantage of taking this step really is say,
look, let's take a look at it in the next three or four months and
think it over.
Commissioner Goosby: But, we're going to vote the $1.00 now in the
whole package.
Commissioner Stephens: Why don't we just leave the $1.00 alone. Why
do we vote the $1.00 now if we're saying we may not do it? Why don't
we just vote on the 70tf, go to the 70£ and then after the AVI comes
in, look at it.
Commissioner Goosby: Would you have to have hearings again?
Mr. Turpen: Yes.
Commissioner Stephens: Would you? Let's do the $1.00.
Mr. Turpen: As I understand it, one last time,...
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 22
Commissioner Duval 1 : Excuse me. I think it's important during this
five month period that we are going to be looking at the AVI and that
they're going to be looking, the operators are going to be looking at
the AVI, I do think it's important that we structure into that period
of time several meetings with appropriate representatives so that we
are interpreting this information in the same way and we won't find
ourselves in May with, as one of the witnesses pointed out today, two
different definitions and two different interpretations of what will
be very important information for us.
Mr. Turpen: Nhat we can do is we can structure the billings on May
1st... what we can do is structure the billings in two ways... we can
send out a billing which would be reflective of what you would be
paying after the rate increase and an amended billing to show what
you'll pay under the current Commission dictate.
Commissioner Duvall: I think that's appropriate. I also think it's
appropriate though, for us to have some mechanism that will address
the operational issues. One of the issues that was addressed by Good
Neighbor Shuttle today is the activity or traffic enforcement
technique, if you will, of the police. Now, I've stood out there
myself and I have watched the behavior of the shuttle bus drivers
that I thought was inappropriate and certainly not in accordance with
what we all agreed that they would be doing. On the other hand,
they're also working under some pretty tough circumstances in a
pretty tough business. I would like to see that addressed head on.
I would like for there to be some kind of a communication that will
facilitate the operators, the management of the operators better
managing their drivers and coming up with the dimunition of that
traffic congestion out there by better management of the operations
out there and by better interplay between the traffic enforcement at
the Airport and the operators. And I'd like to see us address that
head-on with some kind of a meeting and specific communication.
Mr. Turpen: Let me just recap this resolution for the Commission so
that they can act on it. One, that there will be a flat $25.00
annual permit fee charged to all ground transportation persons.
Commissioner Stephens: How many free headings do you get for that?
Mr. Turpen: Dr. Goosby suggested 60 and I don't have any problem
with that.
Commissioner Stephens: Sixty a month?
Mr. Turpen: Yes, 60 free trips a month, which i s ...( interrupted by
comment from the floor)...
Speaker: How about 200?
Mr. Turpen: Well, 4000 would be good too, but I think 60 is fair.
Speaker: How much room are you giving us at the Airport if you're
giving us 60 loops. How much room do we have over there?
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 23
Commissioner Stephens: Did the Commission agree on 60?
Ms. Reisbig: As Ms. Duvall said, we need space to operate otherwise
we have to keep making loops, especially when you're a little company.
Mr. Turpen: The 60, it would appear, would probably cover about half
of the ground transportation persons who make fewer than 60 trips per
month, according to the sheets I'm looking at. So that appears to be
a reasonable number. The proposal would be a $25.00 flat fee, 60
free trips per month for everybody so everybody pays starting on the
61st, that the rate would remain as it is until May 1. On May 1 the
rate would go to 70£. The rate would then go to $1.00 on January 1,
1990, and, we will come back to the Commission in May with two
things. One is a summary of the activity in the first quarter based
on the AVI system and how that impacts what we have done. And,
second, following up on the suggestions of Commissioners Stephens and
Murphy, on the percentage of gross review, as well. We will come
back to you in May with our evaluation of that.
Commissioner Goosby: Who knows, it might be that we don't go that
high.
Commissioner Murphy: One comment, simply that I want to stress that
while I support the motion that's now been made, I am very concerned
about revenue sharing for certain off-Airport businesses and, in
particular, rent-a-cars. I think there are legitimate reasons for
this that should be considered by the staff in reporting back,
including the obvious one of maximization of revenue, but in
addition, the recouping of lost revenue resulting from diversion of
business from on-Airport concessionaires to off -Airport businesses
and also, the elimination of the incentive to on-Airport businesses
to move to off-Airport status to save money. I'd like to see all of
those considered and brought to us.
Commssioner Duvall: I want to be sure that my comments were
understood by the operators in the audience. My concern is that the
operations of these shuttle vans, in particular, I believe that the
most responsive ones are here, that I believe that those operations
need to be toned up. I believe that you can have much more efficient
use of these access ways and can do a better job than what you're
doing right now. And I don't want my comments misunderstood. That's
exactly what I'm saying and that's where I believe that there needs
to be some specific communication between the resources of the
Airport staff and between the management of your company towards that
goal .
Commissioner Stephens: We need a second.
Commissioner Goosby: Second.
Commissioner Bernstein: We need a vote. Call it.
The vote was unanimous to approve the amended resolution
Commissioner Bernstein: I think this is the right move.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 24
The following items were unanimously adopted.
2. Authorization to Receive Bids:
Duty Free/In-Bond Concession Agreement
No. 88-0206 Resolution approving leasehold
specifications and authorizing
Director to accept bids for the Duty
Free/In-Bond concession agreement.
Mr. Turpen told the Commission that Duty Free's current lease expires
in July, 1989. This item asks the Commission's permission to solicit
bids. He said that 18 representatives of 11 companies attended the
pre-bid conference. The most notable modification arising out of the
pre-bid was a two-tiered system which would call for 15 percent of
gross on the first $35-mi 1 1 ion and 20 percent on everything over
$35-mi 1 1 ion . He felt that that was an equitable compromise and
reaction to the concerns of the pre-bid conference participants.
Authorization to Receive Bids
California Products Shop
No. 88-0207
Mr. Turpen explained that only one of the two locations will be bid
and the other location will be incorporated into the North Terminal
Hub concession.
Award of South Terminal Cigarette Vending Lease
No. 88-0208 Resolution approving award of lease
for South Terminal Cigarette Vending
Lease to C.V. Ventures, Inc.
Authorization for Pre-bid Conference :
Lease of Gate 64 Newsstand
No. 88-0209 Resolution approving leasehold
specifications and authorizing
Director to hold a pre-bid conference
for the lease of a newsstand at Gate
64, Boarding Area E in the North
Termi nal .
Mr. Turpen said that American has agreed to relinquish this space in
order to provide a boarding area newsstand/concession activity. He
felt that this would be beneficial from a passenger services
perspective as there is really nothing out there at this point.
Commissioner Goosby noted that staff has suggested the Airport design
and construct the newsstand so that the successful bidder, as a small
business set aside, will be able to dedicate his capital to the
purchase of additional inventory and equipment. He said that this
suggestion demostrates staff's appreciation of the Commission's
concerns and willingness to get small businesses involved in the
Airport.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 25
Award of Contract No. 1017R :
Expansion of Electrical Distribution System
to Abbett-Yick, A Joint Venture
No. 88-0210 This work is the second phase of a
project to expand the 12 kilovolt
electrical distribution system
throughout the Airport to replace the
deteriorated 4 kilovolt systems and to
provide alternate electrical power
sources where only a single source is
avai lable at present.
Lowest responsible bidder is
Abbett-Yick, A Joint Venture in the
amount of $3,975,740, including all
alternates.
7. Supplemental Appropriation Request
No. 88-0211
Commissioner Goosby asked if the Airport was allowed to do this under
Civil Service rules.
Mr. Turpen responded that the Commission agreed to a staff
recommendation that this position be exempt and therefore cause the
person who would be responsible for all concession activity to serve
at pleasure. Staff prepared the appropriate request and
justification. Mr. Turpen said that he made a personal appeal to
Civil Service after they rejected that request. That appeal was
rejected as well. Staff is requesting that the Airports Commission
amend the salary in order to get the type of individual the Airport
is seeking to come to San Francisco to head up the Airport's major
business of concession development.
Ms. Gittens explained that this position is the Director of Property
Management which is the division at the Airport that handles all
leases, contracts and permits.
Commissioner Goosby asked if Civil Service has this position listed
as the Director of Property Management.
Ms. Gittens responded that it has not been classified. It will be
classified but the issue is the salary. A supplemental appropriation
must be sent to the Board of Supervisors in order to reflect- the
salary that Civil Service agrees the position should be paid.
Commissioner Goosby commented that this is a key position.
Mr. Turpen pointed out that this is a default position on the
Airport's part. What we wanted was an exempt position. We felt it
entirely appropriate that a person of this calibre and level be
exempt.
Commissioner Goosby asked if the position title will be changed to
reflect the position being filled.
Ms. Gittens responded that she did not believe that would happen.
She felt that this drab title reflects how this position is viewed by
Civil Service. They see it as just as another position that
supervises several staff, not recognizing the connection to
$ 1 60-mi 1 1 ion in annual revenue. That is the problem we are having.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 26
Commissioner Goosby asked if Civil Service will allow us to have a
supplemental appropriation to augment the salary.
Commissioner Duvall asked Ms. Gittens to explain Civil Service's
arguments against exempting this position.
Mr. Turpen said that the Charter gives the Commission the authority
to create Bureaus and Bureau Chiefs that are exempt. The Airport
created the Bureau of Property Management with the Bureau Chief, i.e.
Director of Properties for the Airport. That was rejected by Civil
Service as they were concerned as to where this position was in the
organization.
Ms. Gittens felt the details should be discussed in executive session,
Declaration of Emergency
Contract No. 2158:
Emergency Aviation Fuel Pipe Repair and Decontamination Work
No. 88-0212 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in
declaring the emergency because of an
aviation fuel pipe rupture near Plot 3
and directing the Director of Airports
to effect the necessary repairs.
Mr. Turpen explained that staff is not certain that the cost might
not exceed the $1 . 5-mi 1 1 ion amount. If necessary staff will return
with an amendment.
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
9. Award of Contract No. 2065 :
Airport Beacon
No. 88-0213 Resolution awarding Contract 2065 to
Abbett Electric Corporation, in the
amount of $64,265.
10. Award of Contract No. 2121 :
Emergency Pavement Repairs - 1989
No. 88-0214
1 1 . Supplemental Emergency Appropriation, Contract No. 2130
Upper Level Road, South Terminal
Concrete Slab Repair
No. 88-0215 Resolution ratifying the action of the
President of the Commission in author-
izing a supplemental encumbrance of
$133,500 towards the emergency repair
of the upper level roadway adjacent to
the South Terminal Building.
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 27
12. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement - Alaska Airlines,
Inc. - Modification No. 3
No. 88-0216
H. PUBLIC HEARING:
The public hearing was opened at 10:35 AM and closed at 10:50 AM, there
being no further comments.
13. Proposed Amendments to the Airports Commission's Rules and Regulations
Mr. Turpen said that these are suggested changes to the Airport's
Rules and Regulations. The Commission will take under advisement the
comments heard today and render its decision at the next regularly
scheduled meeting on December 20, 1988.
Mr. Turpen said that the thrust of these changes is to eliminate the
section in the Rules and Regulations concerning the self-reporting of
individual trips and to reflect the Automatic Vehicle Identification
system. The second part of this is to reflect the separation of van
zones from a single zone into separate van zones as part of some
negotiations staff has been having with the van companies in terms of
how to minimize the impact of van operations at the Airport.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Birenbaum if he wished to address
the Commission.
Mr. Birenbaum said that his clients object to the permits, as they
did the last time. He had specifically addressed this issue on
behalf of his five clients. When they ultimately signed the permits
last time they did so under protest, with a full reservation of
rights. He said that their lawsuit was commenced in San Mateo County
and settled in a peaceful disposition where his clients agreed so
long as there were no material changes. They still reserve the right
to challenge any issue or anything raised in their initial
1 i tigation.
Mr. Birenbaum said that one of the owners raised a couple of valid
points. He said that the application form originally, and now as
it's being incorporated into the rules, goes much further than
traffic control, revenue raising and these objectives. There is a
provision that if an owner dies, that is the end of the permit. The
estate does not automatically take it over. There are provisions
that if a company files a Chapter 11 proceeding and wants to
reorganize the business under the bankruptcy act, that terminates the
permi t.
Mr. Birenbaum said that there are provisions which recognize that the
Airport consists of private roadways. This was challenged in court.
He said that he does not know the legal answers to many of these
questions and that the Airport rules should be studied by counsel and
divided into two parts. Those parts that have to do with legitimate
traffic control, such as traffic regulations, and, those parts with
revenues should be set aside. Another category of rules would go
beyond that. Mr. Birenbaum said that the Airport can make the
argument that they all really effect revenue and all effect control
but the Airport is asking for an awful lot. His clients will not be
able to sign the new application forms as they are currently
presented. They will prepare a statement reserving rights and when
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 28
they sign the permits it will be under protest. He said that he
would never advise his clients to sign these permits in the present
form without a waiver.
Mr. Birenbaum told the Commission that the last time his clients
settled, one of the key issues was the Public Utilities Commission.
He said that he told the Airport then that this hadn't been studied.
The Airport required a PUC license as a condition of the permit. He
said that he told the Airport at that time that it couldn't do that.
Yet the Airport responded. . .no PUC permit, no Airport license.
Mr. Birenbaum said that this was odd considering the arguments the
Airport made in several cases. He said that in the case that was
commenced by Santa Rosa Airporter against the Airport, the Santa Rosa
Airporter went to the PUC and got rights to stop in Marin County.
The Airport told Santa Rosa Airporter that if they stopped in Marin
County they would not be let into the Airport. In San Francisco,
when the suit was commenced by the San Francisco Airporter, the suit
claimed that the Airport breached its contract regarding the
exclusivity provision. The Airport responded to the suit by claiming
that it couldn't do anything about it because they did not have the
power. Mr. Birenbaum said that the Airport has taken very
inconsistent positions on this issue.
Mr. Birenbaum said that the PUC question of concern was one of
insurance. .. it would have driven his clients out of business. They
settled with the Airport with the Airport agreeing to provisional
permits and he could test the PUC issue out. He said that the
Sacramento legislature ultimately saw things their way and a new
provision has been added to code as of January 1st specifically
exempting these kinds of operations from the PUC.
Mr. Birenbaum said that there has been no definition by the Airport
and no attempt to separate the legitimate financial and legal issues.
Commissioner Murphy asked which provisions Mr. Birenbaum found
offensive.
Mr. Birenbaum responded that he did not realize that this would be on
the agenda and he did not have it in front of him. He said he would
be happy to send Airport Counsel a list of the objectionable issues.
Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Birenbaum if he was suggesting that the
permits should be assignable.
Mr. Birenbaum responded that he felt that the permits should have an
assignability provision and that the Airport cannot unreasonably
withhold consent. He said that under the present leasehold"
provisions the lessor can withhold consent, but not unreasonably.
Mr. Birenbaum said that he disagrees with the Commission's basic
right to control off-Airport business. The Supreme Court of the
United States has only spoken in two major cases and the California
Supreme Court has only spoken in one major case and one minor case.
There is very little law on what is an airport. This Airport started
in 1927 and was called Mills Field and then called San Francisco
Municipal Airport. The concept of International Airport has never
appeared anywhere in the code. The word "International" is used for
the first time in the 1950s. He said that he does not know how far
the Commission can go to affect off-Airport business. It's never
been decided legal ly.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Pohl if he wished to address the
Commission.
Minutes. December 6, 1988, Page 29
Mr. Pohl said that the rules indicate that the permit can be
suspended or revoked for any violation but is vague as to how serious
the violation would have to be. He said that within the last six
months SuperShuttle had a company policy of tipping a skycap for
bringing a passenger to a SuperShuttle van. That skycap received a
voucher which could be redeemed for cash at the SuperShuttle office.
When this was brought up to Airport staff, as far as he knows, a
letter was issued to all companys indicating that this was not
allowed. He felt that that policy basically placed skycaps on
SuperShuttle' s payroll in order to deprive other companies of
passengers.
Commissioner Stephens told Mr. Pohl that this was not a forum to
discuss specific infractions. Mr. Turpen handles those issues. This
discussion must address reconstituting the rules.
Mr. Pohl said that the section which declares that a violation of a
rule will cause a permit to be suspended is vague.
Mr. Pohl was also concerned with the section which would separate van
companies into specific zones. He said that the pick up position a
vehicle gets is currently regulated by chance. Those positions by
the crosswalk are most desirable. Positioning of the zones would
effectively put companies out of business if your company is in the
wrong location.
Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Reisbig if she wished to address the
Commi ssion.
Ms. Reisbig said that the drivers are the company's best sales
people. She said that she appreciated the Commission's concerns
about wanting to establish a workable relationship. With regard to a
permits revokabi 1 i ty, she said that Good Neighbor is owner-operated
and if something were to happen to him she would lose her job. She
said that she did not know if these other businesses are owned by one
person. She said that even though their business is small they are
very efficient. The day before Thanksgiving they were able to add
150 referrals from SuperShuttle because their computer system went
out. She said that Good Neighbors transported 500 people on 9 vans
that day.
Mr. Turpen concluded the hearing by saying that the Commission will
take these comments under advisement and review the regulation before
it makes its decision at the next meeting.
I. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission,
J. CORRESPONDENCE:
There was no discussion by the Commission,
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 30
L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 10:50 AM to go into closed session.
\Jaan Caramatti
Commission Secretary
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 31
PROPOSAL
TWO-TIERED PRICING STRDCTDRE
The attached proposal reflects a 2 tier pricing structure
for hotel courtesy vans.
It is the object of this proposal to meet the Airport
Commissions' desire to minimize congestion, increase roadside
revenues, and still provide a high standard of service to the
traveling public.
The 2 tiered pricing ensures that no hotel will exceed
the maximum trips allowed.
o w
z cu
H O
a o
< J
U w
EH
0)
a
U >i
a
<D (0
in
3
D4T3
•
* —
ij
tt|«3
en
CM 00
in
« D
W O
& a
w
w
H D
a o
E-t 03
CO
cu
H «
« D
03
SB
D «
X W
m cm
e
6
e
Si
£
(0
cL
Cu
(0
c
O
•l-l
O
in
z
U>
Pm
.-H
r-H
D
O
O
O
O
O
«
4J
-u
4J
JJ
-U
O
«
e
e
e
e
O
•
•
•
•
4J
O
(0
(0
04
a
x:
03
CT>
•i-t
C
-a
01
■u
c
c
•H
a)
■o
n>
a>
<y
X!
x:
jj
x:
u
(0
«-l •
H
>1
<1> (0
-U TD
•
Itj
to
U 4->
CU
m
a» x:
x: -u
i-H
4J
u
<N
-
£ «w
U
3
O
E CP
•rH C
CO
X -H
tj>
03 T3
C
E (C
•H
a>
•D
0) x!
(0
x:
0)
-U u
x:
0)
w a
OJ
>a
<u
w
a> in
■-(
O •
(0
x
3
a> -ta-
O 1
a
rn
<U -U
B
4-)
a
w
•H
X! <D
u
0)
-u •
>i US
- *-^
C 0)
a
(fl i-l
a> -h
c u
14-1 c
O -u
M
-l-l
FT* F" T~\T FF" ^ PO- Box 109 - Fremont, CA 94537
t Ul\ fflSr " (415) 791-7160
^^
December 2, 1988
Transportation Service
PSC & TCP 1 126 P
Airports Commission
City & County of San Francisco
San Francisco International Airport __- . „
San Francisco, Calif. 94128 DEC ° ^ QP
Dear Sirs:
From the time a 747 departs SFO until it arrives in Hong Kong it will consume
more fuel and derive more revenue than our business will in one years time.
In 1981 my wife and I founded the FUN Connexion, a regularly scheduled Airport
Transportation service between Fremont-Union City-Newark to SFO International.
During the past eight years we have survived the Air Controllers Strike of
1981, the Reagan Recession of 1982-84 and the Great Insurance Ripoff of 1985.
We now face another crisis! The AVI System and fee increase at SFO. Were it
a system that could honestly help the operational problems of ground transpor-
tation at SFO then we would have no complaints. However, neither the system or
fee increase will address the honest problems facing the SF Int'l. Airport or
the Ground Transportation Industry. Therefore, we seek the wisdom and assistance
of the SFO Airports Commission. Please, do not approve the installation of the
half million dollar AVI System or the proposed $1.00 trip fee as requested by-
the Airport Staff. Instead, direct the staff to develop a long range plan that
will decrease the traffic congestion and encourage the public to use mass trans-
portation.
As a scheduled transit operator we have spent 8 years trying to build up our
volume so as to be able to increase our schedule frequency. Under the proposed
rule that we will be able to make only one run through the terminal per schedule
the result will mean many passengers will be left behind because they did not get
theirbaggage in time and will have to wait two hours for the next bus. The
results will be that they will have a friend or relative drive thenext time who
will circle around the terminal aany times and create more congestion!
Attached is a letter to the Ground Transportation Operators from Angela Gittens;
Question #3 refers to charging fees to private passenger vehicles. Her response
was that the parking rates derive $33 million annually for the Airport. However,
the congestion does not come from the private vehicles that pay to park in the
lots but from the private vehicles that refuse to park and just keep circling
through the Airport Terminal !
FUN ^ m
Fremont P.O. Box 109 - Fremont, CA 94537
Union C
Newark
gpgg
^m
Transportation Service
PSC & TCP 1 126 P
She also states that the Airport roadways are not sufficiently large enourh to
implement a private vehicle toll systen. Is the fact that the Airport \;as
poorly designed justification to charge the private Bus Companies more r.onies..
Question --4 shews that the Ground Transportation Operators want to work with the
Airport however, her response was to refer back to the same volur.e of Rules &
Regulations. If the Airport Staff would work with the Operators we feel that
together r. -nore efficient system could be found.
As a scheduled transit operator we do not know the other operators problems and
visa versa, however, by observing the Rules £• Regulations it is obvious that
the bull: of congestion and problems ste~ from current upper level terminal
operation.
Vie appreciate your attention to this very impcrtent matter and know you will
come to the proper decision.
Sincerely ,
Black, Vice President
korris H;erns~ein, Pres.
Dr. Z.L. Goosby, V. Pres,
Donald ?. . Stephens
Sharon 3. Duvall
Patrick. A. kurphy
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ART AGNOS. MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94128
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
PRESIDENT
DR Z L. GOOSBY
VICE-PRESIDENT LOUIS A. TURPEN
DONALD R. STEPHENS DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS
SHARON B. DUVALL
PATRICK A. MURPHY
November 8, 1988
TO: All Commercial Ground Transportation Operators
FROM: Angela kittens
SUBJECT: Response to Ground Transportation Operator Comments
I have attached the response by Airport staff to the specific questions made by
the Ground Transportation Operators at the meeting of October 28, 1988. The
Airports Commission will be asked to approve the proposed $1.00/trip fee at its
December 6, 1988 meeting. The meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. in Room 282
of City Hall.
la utttehs
D eputy Director of Airports
Business and Finance
Attachment
cc: L.A. Turpen
Airports Commission
TELEX 509520
TEL.(415) 761-O800 SFO AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
RESPONSE TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION OPERATORS' COMMENTS
OF OCTOBER 28, 1988
1. "We should charge the On- Airport Operators the dollar per trip fee. Their
buses cause a large part of the congestion problem."
On- Airport operators are paying for their use of Airport roadways through
the concession fees they pay to the Airport. The $12 million the Airport
receives each year from the On-Airport rental car operators represents a
payment for the use of Airport roadways, and the privilege of operating
on- Airport. Airport staff is now developing a plan to eliminate on- Airport
rental car courtesy buses. A new people-mover system is being planned to
connect the terminals with the proposed new rental car structures.
2. "More information needed to back up the $1.00 fee."
"On p. 7 - How many people are included in the operations cost."
Eight Airport staff members devote 100% of their time to commercial and
courtesy vans. These staff members include 4 Police Officers, 2 Clerks, 1
Account Clerk and 1 Management Assistant.
"On p. 5 - Need a specific breakdown of costs."
The Airport's Rates & Charges Report (Appendix A) for Fiscal Year
1988/89 provides more detail on operating costs. A copy has been sent to
the two operators who asked for this detail. Additional copies of the
Rates & Charges Report can be obtained by calling Budget & Financial
Planning at 876-2303.
"Include specific information on revenue for tickets."
The Airport receives approximately $400,000 annually from traffic fines
and forfeitures. This is recorded as a revenue in the Ground
Transportation Cost Center.
G
"Ground Transportation Operators think fees should be charged to private
passenger vehicles."
Full cost recovery has been achieved from private vehicles. With the
recent parking rate increase, private vehicles pay $33 million annually to
the Airport through parking fees. The cost of services provided to all
private vehicles, including use of both roadways and parking facilities, is
$31,473,112 annually.
The imposition of a toll at the Airport is Impossible given the lack of
space. The SFIA terminal roads are shaped in a U and are very short. If a
toll system were implemented, it would back up traffic to the Airport and
on the freeway.
G
-2-
The operators want an operating plan from the Airport. They feel what
we are doing is now inefficient."
The Airport's plan for ground transportation is in effect and is reflected in
the Rules & Regulations concerning loading/unloading zones, he adway
restrictions, service descriptions, fines and fees. Any statistical
information needed to understand our operations can be obtained from
Lands ide.
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 408
Lob Angeles, CA 90045-3690
(213) 337-7721
The Air Transport Association (ATA) represents virtually all of the nation's
passenger and cargo traffic carriers. Our menbershlp makes up the largest single
group of tenants at San Francisco International Airport.
While I am unable to appear before the Commission on December 6 to comment on the
business relationship between off-airport companies and the nations airports, I
hereby submit the ATA' a comments. The keen interest of ATA and its airline members
in the matter of Ground Transportation Fees 1b based on two factors — airport
financial stregth and airline costs,
MA believes that every entity doing business on the airport or deriving revenues from
the airport should pay their fair share costs of operating at the airport. With
respect to off-airport rental car businesses which compete directly with on-airport
rental car concessionaires, the ATA supports the establishment of off-airport car
rental permit fees based upon a percentage of gross revenues derived from airport
passengers, as are imposed by some 40 U.S. airports including, in California, Palm
Springs IX t Long Beach 8Z and John Wayne Airport 9% (the latter effective January 1,
■89).
The economic self-sufficiency of the San Francisco International Airport and similar
facilities is largely the product of cooperation and interdependence involving the
airport proprietor, the airlines serving ths airport and the businesses which compete
vigorously for the opportunity to conduct business on the airport.
Ihis system has worked well over the years. Nationwide, the revenues derived from
the on-alrport rental car companies is seccnd only to public parking lot payments in
the area of non-aeronautical revenue generated on airporte. The Airport Operators
Council International advises that at the top 30 U.S. airports in 1986, the on-
airport rental car companies paid the airports a total of $171,359,000.00 for the
right to do business.
The off-airport rent-a-car companies argue that they should only pay for the airport
facilities they actually use and not pay on the basis of the business derived from
ithe airport. If such a circumstance is allowed to prevail, there would be no reason
for those rental car companies which traditionally do business on-airport to continue
Co do so.
3o businessman is going to pay millions of dollars in franchise fees when he can
:onduct the same level of business for a fraction of that amount outside the airport
)oundarles. Fees based on the actual usage principal would have an almost immediate
md certainly adverse economic impact on the airlines and their passengers.
The projected revenue derived from on-airport rental cars is an integral part of the
complex financial tapestry necessary to underwrite the major capital projects re-
quired to keep pace with the dramatic growth of air travel. Developing a scenario
fhich would enable the traditional on-alrport rental car business to move with
Impunity off-airport, would force airpor; proprietors to dramatically incerase
lirline terminal rental and landing feels to make up for the shortfall. The magnitude
of these increases are exemplified by one major Southern airport which stated that
- mors -
tO-'ST 8S.
go :gq_
Ma. Jean Caramatti Page Two
December 5, 1988
the loss of Its almost $7 million in rental car revenues would result in a $40- — or
182 percent — - per square foot per annum incroase in airline terminal rent or an
increase of 75 cents — or 117 percent par thousand pounds In the landing fee.
Increases of this magnitude must be passed on to the passenger.
Real estate constraints at many major airports have forced on-airport rental car
operators to bus to remove facilities. Our research further shows that the over-
whelming majority of rental car customers for both on-airport and off -airport
vehicles have a prior reservation.
The on-airport rental car companies pay a vary substantial fee for the privilege of
getting the first opportunity to serve the Infrequent walk-up rental car customer.
Failure to establish off-airport rental permit fees at San Francisco could result in
an off-airport movement by rental car companies who could be assured of being out
of the economic grasp of the airport proprietor.
The person who will be discriminated against is the rental car customer) who also
happens to be an airline passenger, who will necessarily carry the burden of making
up a very large revenue shortfall through a more expensive ticket. We urge the
Commission to move forward to establish a resolution calling for a permit fee based
on percentage of gross revenues covering off-airport car rental agencies doing business
at San Francisco International Airport.
Respectfully submitted.
John Richard Hannan
Western Regional Director
of Government Affairs
Air Transport Association
8939 South Sepulveda Blvd., #408
Los Angeles, CA 90045
E"d
20:£T 88. SO 030
SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
JAN 2 5 1989
".,^i ic ■ (boapv
MINUTES
DECEMBER 20, 1988
ART AGNOS, MAYOR
COMMISSIONERS
MORRIS BERNSTEIN
President
DR. Z. L. GOOSBY
Vice President
DONALD R. STEPHENS
SHARON B. DUVALL
PATRICK A. MURPHY
LOUIS A. TURPEN
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, California 94128
Index
of the Minutes
Airports Commission
December 20, 1988
CALENDAR
SECTION
AGENDA
ITEM
TITLE
RESOLUTION
NUMBER
PAGE
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Master Plan
3
3
3
3-4
ITEMS RELAITNG TO ADMINISTRATION,
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
Amendments to the Airports
Commission's Rules and
Regulations
Application for Variances from
Noise Abatement Regulation
88-0224
88-0219
88-0220
88-0221
88-0222
88-0223
4-14
Approval of Additional Service
Payment to the City 88-0225
Award of Contract No. 1416D-R:
Sunscreens for Boarding Area 'C
to Super Sky Products, Inc. 88-0226
14
14
CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
5.
Retirement Resolution:
Nathaniel Bishop
88-0227
15
6.
Retirement Resolution:
Samuel Hawkins
88-0228
15
7.
Resolution Ratifying Personnel
Actions
88-0229
15
Award of Contract No. 1944<R):
West Underpass - Rehabilitation
of Drainage Pump Station 88-0230 15
NEW BUSINESS:
Commendation:
Comm. J. Edward Fleishell 88-0231 15
Commendation:
Comm. Athena Tsougarakis 88-0232 15
CORRESPONDENCE: 15
I. CLOSED SESSION: 3
14
J. ADJOURNMENT: 16
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 2
Minutes
of the
Airports Commission Meeting
December 20, 1988
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca.
B. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Morris Bernstein, President
Z. L. Goosby, Vice President
Patrick A. Murphy
Donald R. Stephens
Sharon B. Duval 1
I. CLOSED SESSION:
The meeting recessed at 9:05 AM to go into closed session and reconvened
at 9:20 AM.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY:
In accordance with Section 54957.1 of
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti ,
Commission Secretary announced
unanimous adoption of resolution no.
88-0217, modification no. 6 to the
agreement with Morrison and Foerster,
and, 88-0218, a settlement of
litigated claim at the closed session
of December 6, 1988.
D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Goosby asked if the environmental impact report for the West
of Bayshore property has been completed.
Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, responded that the study was concluded about
a year and a half ago and the recommendations from that study will be used
as a basis for mitigation alternatives. Subsequent to that, a request
came through about a week and a half ago from Fish and Wildlife requesting
another opportunity to take a look at that area. Mr. Turpen said that he
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 3
could not recall the specifics and would take another look at the request.
Commissioner Goosby said that when the second and third hearings on the
master plan are held it would be helpful if reference could be made and
conclusions drawn as to the possibilities for that area.
Commissioner Goosby reminded Mr. Turpen that resolution of the West of
Bayshore was a high priority of the past administration. As runway
relocation and alternative locations for rent-a-car facilities are being
considered it would help make the decision-making process if it were all
1n one package.
E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
The following items were unanimously adopted.
1 . Amendments to the Airports Commission's Rules and Regulations
No. 88-0224 Amendments to the Airport's
Commission's Rules and Regulations are
being presented for adoption. A
public hearing on the amendments was
held at the Commission's December 6,
1988 meeting.
Mr. Turpen explained that this item is a follow up to the December 6
publ ic hearing.
The following is a verbatim transcript of Item No. 2.
Application for Variances from Noise Abatement Regulation
Resolutions granting or denying
applications of certain airlines for
variances from the Airport
Commission's Noise Abatement
Regulation.
MR. TURPEN: The Airports Commission is well aware, having received a
significant amount of material pertaining to this item, not only from
me but from carriers that might be effected as well as members of the
public, certainly the result of the hearings at the Airport and his
findings, as well. At this time I think It would be appropriate for
the Commission to hear from the public as to the recommendations that
I've made and we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: All right. I have here some names. I'm
calling them in alphabetical order so there's no idea of preference
at all. Mr. Glenn Albos of Evergreen International Airways.
MR. TURPEN: If you could, please state your name and affiliation for
the record.
MR. ALBOS: Yes. Glenn Albos, corporate counsel at Evergreen
International Airlines. Just a brief statement on behalf of
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 4
No.
88-0219
No.
88-0220
No.
88-0221
No.
88-0222
No.
88-0223
Evergreen. We find the recommended terms by the Director of Airports
in his letter of December 15, 1988 generally acceptable to Evergreen.
Our primary concern is with term no. 3 and it's mainly a clarifica-
tion which limits the carrier to no more than five take-offs and five
landings a week at San Francisco and our primary concern there is the
unscheduled maintenance. If our aircraft positioned there has a
problem and we have to bring in another aircraft or bring in another
aircraft for unscheduled maintenance, that the Commission understands
that that doesn't jeopardize our exemption. We do note that in the
resolution there are some exemptions for maintenance but we wanted to
state that position on the behalf of Evergreen.
MR. TURPEN: Mr. Albos, to clarify, are you suggesting that you might
have an aircraft on the ground in San Francisco that might require
maintenance and neccessitate a sixth trip In?
MR. ALBOS: That kind of exigency would be in that realm.
MR. TURPEN: I believe, and I'd have to refresh my memory on it, but
I call your attention to the regulation which I believe has a section
concerning exemptions for emergencies which involves this type of
thing. As well, there's a maintenance exemption section if this type
of situation occurs and I believe the Commission is specific as to
the actions of the carrier in these events which I think involves
contacting the Director of Airports and advising the Commission.
MR. ALBOS: That's correct. I understand that. Thank you,
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much. Mr. David Carbone of
the Airport Community Roundtable staff. May I ask the speakers to
try to limit to as short a time as possible. I know many of you have
come a long way so I don't want to impose a time limit but we'd all
appreciate it.
MR. CARBONE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Mr. President
and members of the Commission. My name is David Carbone and I'm the
staff to the Airport Community Roundtable. I'm here this morning on
behalf of our Chairman, Roger Chinn, and he'd like me to express the
Roundtable's position on the variance request. I have a letter here,
signed by Mr. Chinn that I will give to the Secretary (see attaced).
If I can, Mr. President, I'd like to just briefly summarize and
highlight the letter for you.
On December 7, 1988 the Airport Community Roundtable discussed the
status of the noise variance requests. Based upon considerable
discussion by the Roundtable and input from the public, the
Roundtable voted six to zero, with Mr. Turpen and Mr. McGovern
abstaining, to recommend to the Airports Commission that it not grant
any variance request from the five airlines involved. The granting
of the variances now would further diminish the strength and
integrity of the regulation and such action could set a precedent for
other airlines to follow and diminish the credibility of the
regulation and the Airports Commission. The Roundtable strongly
urges the Airports Commission to deny all pending variance requests
to maintain the integrity and strength of the noise regulation. Such
action by the Commission will demonstrate its commitment to continue
to reduce noise impacts from San Francisco International Airport.
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 5
That's all I have, Mr. President. I have copies of the letter for
you.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. John Demarco. There's no
affiliation. Who are you with?
MR. DEMARCO: I'm a private citizen. Can I speak?
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Of fine.
MR. DEMARCO: I wish I could speak in a voice... My name is John
Demarco, private citizen from Burlingame, and I wish I could speak in
a voice as loud as some of the aircraft taking off from the San
Francisco International Airport. The noise has gotten terrible. It
certainly disturbs me, my neighbors, my wife, dogs, children. I know
the Airport Commission wants to do something positive for everyone
but on this particular issue I don't think there can be any
compromise. No variances should be granted. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERSNTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Paul Dinger of Northwest
Airl ines.
MR. DINGER: Mr. President, members of the Commission. Paul Dinger
from Northwest Airlines, corporate counsel. I'm here today to speak
in opposition to the recommendation of the Airport Director that
Northwest not be granted its variance request from this noise
abatement regulation. At the hearing procedure, and I'm not going to
reiterate all of the facts as there's a record on that. But at the
hearing, the hearing officer found the facts which I believe favored
Northwest's request for a variance. Those facts were essentially
that Northwest is making progress in an attempt to come into
compliance with your noise abatement regulation. It is not intending
to increase the noise level or the number of operations in the year
of variance which it requests. It would maintain its current
schedule and it would offer to reduce its take-off weights, the
weight of the aircraft, so that all of its Stage II would be flying
basically within, exactly within Stage III noise characteristics.
We believe that the facts as demonstrated at the hearing show
Northwest's substantial financial commitment to this community and to
international Pacific air cargo business. We'd also point out that
the Airport Director's findings or recommendations seem to fly in the
face of the facts as found by the hearing officer. We're basically
nonplused as to why, at this point in time, a recommendation would be
forthcoming not to grant a variance that would have no impact except
to maintain the current noise level at San Francisco International,
in fact, reduce that noise level because it reduces take-off weights.
And I would refer the Commission to the findings of fact that the
hearing examiner made.
The Director of Airports appears to take umbrance at the fact that
Northwest wants to sacrifice the area residents here to the residents
in the Tokyo area and the Director obscures the fact that Northwest
Airlines and other airlines who make speak today really have no
alternatives in that Tokyo market in terms of slot control. We do
not exist, we do not do business in San Francisco inspite of the
residents of this community. We do business here fully realizing
that we're here for them and because of them.
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 6
With that I would recommend to the Commission that it not accept the
Director's recommendation with respect to the Northwest variance.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Kenneth Fredeen of Canadian
Airl ines.
MR. FREDEEN: My name is Ken Fredeen and I appear on behalf of
Canadian Airlines International, Ltd. I am in-house counsel with the
company and we are a company with head office in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. I have here today, Mr. President, a further submission.
Before the Commission is a submission which we filed in response to
the hearing officers findings and recommendations. We have, since
that time, received the recommendations of the Airport Director and
we received those late last week and we would like to file today a
further submission in response to those recommendations because we
feel that there's much in those recommendations that needs to be
dealt with. And I would like to take this opportunity to file with
the Secretary the further submission. (See attached)
I had prepared a submission that was going to be lengthy. I would
like to summarize that somewhat in light of your suggestion, however,
I would like to highlight some of the concerns that we have. We have
filed our submission to the hearing officer's report and on the whole
we find it to be a fair review of the facts. We spent a considerable
period of time at that time. We brought down people that knew how
our operations worked in San Francisco, how we operated our aircraft.
We also brought down a vice president who dealt with our fleet
acquisitions, etc., and all of that information. It was a fairly
lengthy discussion at that time and the hearing officer gave us a
fair hearing and it was dealt with. On the whole we appreciate the
comments made by the hearing officer.
But I would like to refer to the recommendations of the Director of
Airports. And first, just quickly, the first argument that was made
was the argument and Canadian Airlines agrees that the
length of the variance request or the number of operations requested
is only one of many factors that should be considered and we ask the
Commission to take that into consideration. We are seeking two
operations per day in addition to the two that have been granted by
the regulation and we are seeking. . .our variance request was for a
period of two years and ten months, a date, I might add, that
corresponds with our acquisition of a number of suitable stage III
aircraft that will be used for this route. Secondly, we dealt with
the review of the operations at the hearing only to bring to the
attention of the Commission the fact that we operate our aircraft in
such a manner that they are close to the stage III limits.
However, a major conclusion reached by the Director of Airports was
that Canadian Airlines had not taken bona fide measures to
demonstrate its intent to comply with the regulation, and to this we
object. Canadian Airlines is a relatively airline, formed through
merger of four airlines on January 1, 1988. Since that time we have
taken a considerable amount of effort to merge the four airlines and
we've also taken very aggressive steps to acquire new aircraft that
meet stage III. I might point out at this time, and 1t is in our
submission that was presented to the hearing officer, that Canadian
Airlines has committed to acquisitions in the neighborhood of
$1.3-billion and a large portion of that is in respect to airbus 320s
that our suitable for this route.
The type of market is a high business component, and I won't go into
detail, we dealt with that in great detail at the hearing and those
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 7
recommendations can be found in the hearing officer's report.
To, as the Director suggests, remove one of our stage III aircraft,
and we have a number in our fleet, onto this route, is not economical
and is not efficient. We have a number of large stage III aircraft,
DClOs and also some new 767s. Those are used on transcontinental.
To remove them from those routes and place them on this route would
take them off of routes such as Vancouver/Tokyo or Vancouver/Hong
Kong or Toronto/Rome which is neither efficient or economical. Our
flights today are running at about 76 percent capacity.
Now, there were a number of suggestions and we discussed these in
great detail and I would like to highlight those to the Commission
today. One is through the purchase of stage III aircraft. In our
submission to the hearing officer we dealt with in great detail the
steps taken by Canadian Airlines to acquire stage III aircraft. I
might add that those steps were taken approximately six months after
notice of this regulation was given and our commitments to purchase
these aircraft are highlighted 1n the report. To date we have 17
firm orders and options on a further 34. To bump those dates ahead,
and I think the Commission is well aware because It has been brought
to the attention of the Commission before, that it is difficult to
acquire aircraft on short notice and we took steps, very shortly
after this regulation and also after the merger date, to acquire
aircraft, suitable stage III, suitable for this route. But we have
bumped ahead those aircraft through the lease of eight airbus 320s
for delivery commencing in 1991. Our application for variance was
based on that date of acquiring those leased aircraft for use on this
route. At the hearing we committed ourselves to using those aircraft
on this route. We commence delivery of those aircraft in October of
1991.
Today we are prepared to say that, and this we have confirmed, that
we would be prepared to commit a further airbus 320 in the year 1992,
in the summer of 1992, that being the delivery date of another airbus
320.
Another option which was considered was the use of hush kits. At the
time of the hearing we were relatively pessimistic, as most carriers
with a fairly large 737 fleet are, about the possibilities of retro-
fitting the 737s. We have recently been told by our operations
people, one of whom was at the hearing and dealt with this in great
detail, that in fact Nordham Pratt Witney Group is designing or
prepared to proceed with the design development of the Nordham hush
kits. Our information that we have is that these might be available
for production and delivery as early as the end of 1990 for use in
1991. Now, presently we operate 737s on this route, the Vancouver/
San Francisco route, and of course, as any other carriers are, we are
interested in retrofitting our aircraft. Those aircraft would be
used on this route.
On that point, we are prepared to commit new aircraft, stage III
aircraft, to this route and also, should the technology allow,
retrofitted 737s on this route which would, in fact, lead to the
conclusion that Canadian Airlines has, in fact
exceeded. . .(interrupted by Commissioner Goosby)
COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: In 1990, right?
MR. FREDEEN: Actually, sir, 1991. That is in 1991. That is the
basis for the request for variance. An important factor, and I'd
like to conclude remarks on that part... an important matter which was
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 8
not dealt with at the he
Airlines has in respect
treaty was f i led with th
very short time span. I
today, if the Commission
And I think I would 1 ike
that we are not suggesti
section E28 and that was
Director. What we were
contemplated by the regu
factors. Our argument u
been expressed by the Ca
the Secretary of State.,
it because I'm not sure
aring was the special
to its rights under a
e hearing officer and
was prepared to argue
so wishes, because it
to draw to the attent
ng that we have met th
the conclusion reache
saying was that there
lation and this is one
nder that bilateral tr
nadian Embassy, which
.1 have that today and
if that is before the
status which Canadian
bilateral treaty. That
we dealt with it in a
that in greater detail
"s an important thing,
ion of the Commission
e requirements of
d by the Airport
are other factors
of those other
eaty is that. . .what has
was passed on through
I would like to fi le
Commission.
MR. TURPEN: Is that the statement that was sent a few days ago?
MR. FREDEEN: From Mr. Griffiths. That is the actual diplomatic
note.
MR. TURPEN: Yes, I did and I also put that in the docket and it will
be part of the record.
MR. FREDEEN: Thank you, very much. I would only like to quote the
fourth paragraph when the Embassy states that "...it wishes to advise
the Department of State that the Government of Canada would view with
concern actions by local airport authorities that would have the
effect of imposing a capacity limitation on air services operated
pursuant to a designation under the agreement." Our point is that we
are competing on this route, we only have the one route into San
Francisco. We are competing with an American carrier. We cannot
augment our flights into San Francisco through domestic flights into
SFIA. We are stuck with this one route and therefore it puts us at a
competitive disadvantage. Those submissions are in detail in the
three submissions which have been filed to date. The latest one
being the response to the Airport Director's submissions.
In conclusion, Mr. President, the regulation provides for progressive
steps imposed upon airlines to reduce noise. We acknowledge that.
But the regulation acknowledges that in certain circumstances a
variance would be granted and it sets forth eight factors, all of
which have been dealt with at numerous times. I won't go through
them in detai 1 today.
I would just like to point out that Canadian Airlines is a young
airline which has aggressively expanded its fleet. It's a carrier
designated under the bilateral agreement which affords It some form
of special status which, it is respectfully submitted, should be
considered by the Commission today. And that it is monitoring
closely the acquisition of hush kits and those will be used on
aircraft used on this route which will, in fact, put Canadian
Airlines far beyond the requirements of the regulations. It has
leased for delivery in 1991 the airbus 320, as I've noted and that we
are prepared to commit a further stage III aircraft in 1992.
Considering all of the factors and in light of the hearing officer's
finding of fact, of which I've stated Canadian Airlines does not
object, it has just provided a number of further points, it is
respectfully submitted that the application for variance by Canadian
Airlines should be granted.
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 9
I'm prepared to answer any questions the Commissioners might have.
COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: I just had one. Can I interpret your remarks
to mean that your company is unable to lease or unable to buy... I
know that the retrofitting won't be ready until two or three years,
but stage III aircraft, you're unable to. . .you have some coming in
1991. Are you saying that you can't lease or buy one for implementa-
tion in 1989 or 1990? Because you can't get them or because
financially you can't afford them?
MR. FREDEEN: That very question was asked by the hearing officer,
Mr. Commissioner. The answer to it in brief 1s that the one time
acquisition of a leased aircraft is expensive, the one time cost to
bring that aircraft on... fleet planning takes three to five years.
Canadian Airlines has deemed the airbus 320 to be the best aircraft
for use in this fleet. To lease an aircraft, if we could lease one
and the evidence before the hearing officer was that there are not
that many aircraft available. I recall that the counsel for the
Airport suggested that we should acquire 727s and retrofit them and
those were the only questions from the Airport at that time to us on
the acquisition of aircraft. We suggested that that was not
possible. To do that would be expensive. We'd have a couple of
aircraft for a particular route that would lead to scheduling
problems, etc. The earliest date for the acquisition through lease
of an airbus 320 was 1991. That is the very earliest date and we...
interrupted by Commissioner Goosby.
COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: That's the earliest you could get one.
MR. FREDEEN: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, the very earliest.
COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I have one question. What are your load
factors on your operations at present?
MR. FREDEEN: They are, for the first nine months, 78.6 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURPHY: On the San Francisco/Vancouver route?
MR. FREDEEN: Yes sir.
COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. FREDEEN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Rex Maytan of the Postal
Service.
MR. MAYTAN: My name is Rex Maytan and I'm the General Manager of the
Air Contracts Management Division in Washington, D.C. and contracting
officer for about 90 percent of the airlift mail in the United States
and elsewhere. I'm here today to voice sone comments in relation to
the proposed legislation of the noise abatement as it effects one of
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 10
our contractors which Is Evergreen. As you probably know, over a
year and a half ago the U.S. Postal Service made a corporate decision
to participate in the express mail market, and, which we consider to
be in the best interest of the public who uses express mail.
Specifically, I'm talking about express mail which is next day
delivery and delivery by noon. This particular product line must fly
late night, early morning hours and arrive at the destination by or
before 7:00 AM so that we can effect delivery. If Evergreen is not
granted a variance then they will not be able to fly into San
Francisco without creating an economic burden for themselves and us.
Our only alternative would be to fly into Oakland, in which case we
would still not be able to make delivery and stay in competition
because of the time it takes to get from Oakland to San Francisco
area. We do not have a facility at Oakland to do the distribution
and del ivery.
I think it suits the public Interest for the U.S. Postal Service to
stay in the express mail market. If we are prevented from doing so,
just in the San Francisco area alone It could effect our entire
nationwide market, and 1n which case the creation of an oligopoly or
a monopoly and the express mail market would not be in the public
interest.
Consequently, my recommendation here is to urge granting Evergreen
the variance so that they can become in compliance with your noise
abatement restrictions over a period of time without creating an
economic burden for them or for us. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Herbert Rosenthal of DHL
Airways.
MR. ROSENTHAL: Good morning, Mr. President, my name is Herbert
Rosenthal and I represent DHL Airways. We have submitted to you
written comments on the hearing officer's findings and our thoughts
on the Director of Airport's recommendation.
We need a two year variance and the proposal of the Director of
Airports will be satisfactory to us. We have a couple of comments on
that and I think most of those problems are solved by other relief
valves in the regulations. Like Evergreen, we may have an airplane
here that malfunctions and we have to bring in another airplane to
operate the flight. I believe there 1s basically the ability to make
a telephone request to the Director of Airports office to get relief
from that. Similarly, our maintenance base is here and we normally
try to program our aircraft to fly into San Francisco on a scheduled
basis so they can spend the weekend here for maintenance or overnight
for maintenance. There may be an occasion that we would have to
bring one 1n on a ferry flight. I'm told we're talking about five
events a year which is hardly anything, but I do believe that there
are relief valves for us in the regulations. We would also be
pleased to work with the Airport Roundtable and we anticipate no
difficulty in having a DHL representative present at most of those
meetings. I hope someone would put us on a mailing list so that we
would get notice of them.
Other than that we think we can live with the Director of Airports
proposal. If you elect not to adopt that then we need a two year
variance. I have nothing further to state and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal
Mr. Timothy Treacy of the San Francisco Airport Noise Committee.
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 11
MR. TREACY: Good morning, Mr. President and Mr. Commissioners, my
name is Timothy Treacy. I'm representing the Airport Noise Committee
established by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County. We
attended all of the variance hearings and made written presentations.
We also have summarized our recommendations in a letter dated
December 14 which we caused to be delivered to the Airport
Commission. I hope that you received and distributed it. I won't go
over the letter, I know that you'll take the contents of it into
consideration. We have two conditions in addition to those proposed
by Mr. Turpen, otherwise we support his recommendations.
The first of those conditions Is that the carriers be required to
make reports that would be made available for public Inspection. As
I review Mr. Turpen's conditions I see that he Is opposing our
conditions but there seems to be no way that we can monitor to
determine whether, in fact, those conditions are being satisfied. So
we would respectfully request that that problem be corrected by
requiring the carrier to make some sort of public report.
Secondly, we have a proposal 1n our letter of December 14 to require
the airlines to fund a noise impact assessment of their operations
pursuant to these variance requests. We think this is reasonable and
we think it's about time the airlines start getting involved in
seeking a solution to this horrible problem they've created for the
residents of San Francisco and elsehwere by these overflights. So we
hope that you will take that into consideration.
Lastly, we did attend the hearings. We have no quarrel with the way
Mr. Wharton conducted the hearings. They were done very fairly and
we feel that the City Attorney's representative did an adequate job
of cross examination, but you have no provision, and Mr. Wharton did
not allow us to present sworn testimony nor conduct cross-examina-
tion. We respectfully request that in future hearings that this be
done. We feel that we have a lot at stake and we would like to
participate fully in any hearing before the Airport Commission. Mr.
Turpen, in his transmittal memorandum, references our testimony. In
fact, we were not allowed to present testimony.
Lastly, in connection with the comments of the Canadian representa-
tive, at the hearing the hearing officer, Mr. Wharton, specifically
excluded consideration of the bipartisan agreement and we're a little
surprised and a little concerned at the kind of ad hoc nature of this
preceeding whereby a representative can come in here at the last
moment and make a plea to you based on this bilateral agreement which
we were not allowed to discuss at the hearing. We stated at the
hearing at that time that if that were to be an issue we would like
an opportunity ourselves to review the agreement and address comments
on It. On the one hand we're told that the residents of this area
must bear the noise impacts so that the people of Tokyo, for example,
can Impose a curfew and now we're told that we should continue to
bear additional noise impact so that the people of Canada can have
quieter over their skies. Somewhere along the line this problem is
going to have to be addressed. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Mark Young, citizen of San
Francisco designation.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning. My name is Mark Young and I'm a recent
home buyer in the Noe Valley. Approximately one month ago I moved
from the northern part of San Francisco to the southern part and
immediately my wife and I went into shock at the airplane noise over
our house. I've gotten Involved 1n the issue and I'd like to support
Minutes, December 20. 1988, Page 12
the letter written to you by the Airport Noise Committee, and, just
from a more personal standpoint I feel like I'm going to have to move
if something isn't done about this problem. Thank you for listening.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Herman Bliss from the
Federal Aviation Administration.
MR. BLISS: Thank you. I'm Herman Bliss and I'm manager of the
Airport's Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific
Region in Los Angeles. I'm here to provide a statement of the FAA's,
Federal Aviation Administration, concerning San Francisco Airport
Commission's variance policy. I have provided the original copy to
Mr. Turpen and copies to the lady on my right. I have to apologize
for coming late to your hearing but I wanted to admit that the delay
was on the L.A. end and not on this end.
Mr. Bliss read from a prepared text (see attached) and made no
additional comments.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Bliss. Well, that completes
the speakers. Anything you want to add Mr. Turpen?
MR. TURPEN: I understand the views as expressed by the persons both
pro and con. There's nothing in the presentations which would cause
me to change my recommendation to you at this time. And, my
recommendation continues to be as outlined for you in agenda item no.
2. I'll be happy to try and respond to any questions the Commission
has or follow any direction the Commission wishes to establish.
COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: Have they received your letter explaining your
recommendations. . .each of the carriers?
MR. TURPEN: Commissioner Goosby, what happened was Thursday evening,
simultaneously with the Commission's receipt, documents were trans-
mitted to all those persons who were interested and were sent by FAX
to the airlines so they were available to them on Friday morning.
COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: They have all your reasoning and so forth,
MR. TURPEN: We have shared all of the information with the effected
persons that came to us.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Don, do we go into a closed session to
discuss this?
MR. GARIBALDI: If you want to consult with counsel on the matter
then you certainly may.
COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: I'm not prepared to vote.
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 13
MR. TURPEN: The Airport's Commission has asked to converse with
counsel on this matter and therefore I'll ask your Indulgence again
if you would step into the hall for just a few moments.
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. I'm sorry to do it this way,
ladles and gentlemen.
I. CLOSED SESSION:
The meeting recessed at 10:03 AM and reconvened at 10:30 AM.
Due to technical difficulties, no tape is available for the last ten
minutes of the meeting. The following is a summary of the comments
made.
Application for Variances from Noise Abatement Regulation . . .continued.
Commissioner Murphy expressed his concerns about placing Canadian
Airlines in an economically unviable situation. He felt that
Canadian was making a good faith effort to bring itself into
compliance. He realized that they had no control over the fact that
their order of A320s would not be available until 1991. He also
accepted their reticence in not wanting to shift equipment from their
transcontinental routes as that equipment is too large for the
Vancouver/San Francisco route and would make the operation
uneconomical and inefficient. He also said that he did not want to
force Canadian into dropping flights into San Francisc.
Commissioner Murphy concluded his remarks by saying that although
Canadian made some compelling arguments and was impressed with the
presentation, he would vote in accordance with the Director's
recommendation with the understanding that staff would work with
Canadian to help bring them into compliance.
The Commission concurred with Commissioner Murphy's remarks and no
further comments were made.
3. Approval of Additional Service Payment to the City
No. 88-0225 Resolution approving an additional
service payment to the City of
$830,998 for Fiscal Year 1987-88.
4. Award of Contract 1416D-R:
Sun Screens for Boarding Area 'C to Super Sky Products, Inc.
No. 88-0226 This contract will provide a sunscreen
system on the Boarding Area 'C
skylight to reduce glare affecting the
view from the FAA control tower.
Lowest responsible bidder is Super Sky
Products, Inc. for $160,300.00.
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 14
F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The following items were adopted unanimously.
5. Retirement Resolution: Nathaniel Bishop
No. 88-0227
6. Retirement Resolution: Samuel Hawkins
No. 88-0228
Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions
No. 88-0229 Resolution, in accordance with the
requirements of San Francisco City
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and
approving certain personnel actions
taken by the Director of Airports.
Award of Contract No. 1944(R)
West Underpass - Rehabilitation of Drainage Pump Station
No. 88-0230 Resolution awarding Contract No.
1944(R) to E. Mitchell, Inc., in the
amount of $83,964.
G. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no discussion by the Commission
H. CORRESPONDENCE:
Commissioner Goosby introduced resolutions commending former Commissioners
J. Edward Fleishell and Athena Tsougarakis for their work on the Airports
Commission.
The resolutions was adopted unanimously by the Commission.
No. 88-0231 Commissioner J. Edward Fleishell
No. 88-0232 Commissioner Athena Tsougarakis
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 15
J. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further calendared business before the Commission the
meeting adjourned at 10:40 AM.
/Jean Caramatti
Commission Secretary
Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 16
AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY
December 20, 1988
Honorable President and Members
San Francisco Airports Commission
P.O. Box 8097
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, CA 94128
Dear Members of the Airports Commission:
SUBJECT: Consideration of Noise Regulation Variance Requests
On December 7, 1988, the Airport/Community Roundtable discussed the status of the
noise variance requests received from Northwest Airlines, Braniff Airlines, Canadian
Airlines International, Evergreen International Airlines, and DHL Airways, Inc.
Based upon considerable discussion by the Roundtable and input from the public, the
Roundtable voted 6-0-2 (Mr. Turpen and Mr. McGovern abstaining) to recommend to the
Airports Commission that it not grant any variance requests from the above-referenced
airlines.
This recommendation is based on two points:
1. The Roundtable and the public provided substantial input to the Airports Commis-
sion regarding content and timetable provisions in the noise regulation, during
its formulation. The final adopted version of the regulation was not as strong
as prior drafts and did not contain many key elements that were supported by the
Roundtable, many local cities, and the public. The granting of variances now
would further diminish the strength and integrity of the regulation; and
2. It is too early to allow variances to a regulation that has yet to be imple-
mented. Such action could set a precedent for other airlines to follow and
diminish the credibility of the noise regulation and the Airports Commission.
The Airport/Community Roundtable is supportive of the Airports Commission's new noise
regulation. However, we strongly urge the Airports Commission to deny all pending
variance requests to maintain the integrity and strength of the noise regulation.
Such action by the Commission will demonstrate its commitment to continue to reduce
noise impacts from San Francisco International Airport.
Roger Chinn/ Chairman //
RC:DFC/kcd - K1E12729
cc: Roundtable Members
Louis Turpen, Director of Airports
I.ANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DUNTY OF SAN MATEO
!'0 HAMILTON ST., REDWOOD CITY
(V 94063 (415] 363-4161
NOISE MONITORING CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
P.O. BOX 8097
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94128 (415) 876-2220
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
December 19, 1988
In the Matter of the
Application for Variance of:
)
Response to
Director of Airports
Recommended Action
on Pending Applications
for Noise Variances
CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL LTD,
INTRODUCTION
This submission is further to the Response filed with the Airports
Commission and dated December 15, 1988 and deals specifically with the
recommendations made by the Director of Airports ("Director") to the
Airports Commission and contained in a memorandum dated December 15,
1988.
RESPONSE
Canadian Airlines agrees with the Director's statement (page 2) that "no
carrier should receive a Variance simply because its non-compliant
operations are so few in number that they have virtually no impact on
the noise environment". Canadian Airlines would agree with the
dismissal of an application for Variance which simply relied on the
argument of de minimus unless, on the balance, other public interest
factors weighed in favour of the applicant. It is submitted, however,
that the number of flights for which a Variance is sought is a very
important factor to be considered by the Commission when deciding
whether or not a Variance should be granted. By virtue
of the Regulation, one factor which the Commission must consider is the
noise impact upon SFIA and surrounding communities should the request
for a Variance be granted. A request for a Variance to allow a large
number of flights using Stage 2 aircraft and/or a request for a
Variance for an extended period of time would contribute more to noise
than an application for a small number of operations for a limited period
of time. Furthermore, each application for Variance must be looked at
independently of other applications as each Applicant will have
particular circumstances which may or may not warrant the granting of
a Variance.
Canadian Airlines submits that a factor to be considered by the
Commission is that its request for a Variance pursuant to Section
4(E)(1) is for a limited number of daily operations (2) for a limited
duration (October 30, 1991). It is submitted that the granting of the
Variance as requested would have a negligible impact on noise at SFIA
and the surrounding communities. This factor should not be considered
in isolation but weighed with the balance of evidence submitted by
Canadian Airlines pursuant to Section 4(e)(2).
Related to the issue of noise is how each airline operates its aircraft
into and out of SFIA. On this point, Mr. Gene Nimetz presented
detailed evidence on behalf of the Company on the operation of its
aircraft. Canadian Airlines operates its aircraft under conditions which
make its Stage 2 aircraft only marginally noisier than some Stage 3
aircraft. Again, this evidence was presented only as one factor to be
considered by the Commission on the issue of noise under Section
E(2)(a).
Canadian Airlines objects to the conclusion reached by the Director that
it has not taken bona fide measures over the past year to comply with
the Regulation. To the contrary, evidence given through written
submission and oral testimony at the Hearing detailed three main areas
being pursued by Canadian Airlines (see pages 5-7 Canadian -Airlines
Submission). With respect to an aircraft suitable for the San Francisco
- 2 -
- Vancouver route, Canadian Airlines has placed 17 firm and has
options on 34 Airbus A-320 aircraft for delivery commencing in 1993.
More importantly, in order to bring these aircraft into service at an
earlier date, Canadian Airlines has leased 8 Airbus A-320 aircraft for
delivery commencing in the fall of 1991. It is the commitment of
Canadian Airlines to use these aircraft on the San Francisco -
Vancouver route when delivered. The application for Variance to
October 1991 was based on the fall 1991 delivery date. It is
respectfully submitted that no other reasonable steps could have been
taken by Canadian Airlines to comply with the Regulation through the
lease or purchase of suitable Stage 3 aircraft.
With respect to retrofitting the Stage 2 Boeing 737-200 aircraft of which
Canadian Airlines has 66, the Company is committed to retrofitting these
aircraft and is pursuing the purchase of Hush Kits. It is not expected
that this technology will be available until 1991. The most recent
information available to us is that as of the first of this month, Nordam
and Pratt and Whitney have reached agreement supporting the
continuing design and development of the Nordam noise suppression
system. Certification for the Boeing 737-200 is anticipated for the fall
of 1990 with production delivery by the end of 1990. Through the
retrofitting of these aircraft Canadian Airlines would exceed the
requirements established in the Regulation.
Canadian Airlines recognizes the specific requirements of Section
E(2)(h) and acknowledges that it has not provided "a statement, signed
by the Secretary of State or by the Deputy Secretary of State stating
the official position of the United States ...". Rather, the position of
the Government of Canada so expressed by the Canadian Embassy in
Washington, was forwarded to the Director of Airports in the form of a
Diplomatic Note. The United States Department of State agreed to
forward the Note to the Director of Airports. In particular, Canadian
Airlines draws to the attention of the Commission the fourth paragraph
of the Note. It is the submission of Canadian Airlines that the effect
- 3
of the Regulation on bilateral agreements between the United States and
Canada must be considered by the Commission as one of the "other
factors" contemplated by the Regulation in Section 4(e)(2).
Canadian Airlines is the Canadian carrier designated to operate the San
Francisco - Vancouver route and pursuant to the Air Transport
Agreement between the United States and Canada dated January 17,
1966 (the "Bilateral"). Under the Bilateral, the parties agreed to
ensure equitable opportunities for the airlines designated to operate the
route. It is respectfully submitted that a denial of Canadian Airlines'
application for Variance would be discriminatory. Canadian Airlines is
authorized to operate into San Francisco from Vancouver only and
therefore it is not able to use U.S. domestic operations at SFIA in
order to comply with the Regulation pending delivery of its smaller
Stage 3 aircraft or the retrofitting of its Stage 2 aircraft. This leaves
Canadian Airlines at a competitive disadvantage. Denial of the Variance
would be discriminatory by effectively imposing capacity and frequency
control through aircraft restrictions on a service provided pursuant to
the Bilateral. The principle of equitable opportunity would be lost. To
suggest that Canadian Airlines could comply with the Regulation
through the elimination of one daily round trip ignores the special
status afforded to the Applicant pursuant to the Bilateral. This issue
should be considered by the Commission on this Application.
Canadian Airlines agrees with the conclusion reached by the Hearing
Officer that the elimination of one of Canadian Airlines' daily flights
would harm the travelling public and submits that this conclusion is
supported by the evidence placed before the Commission. Canadian
Airlines disagrees with the Director that another carrier could increase
its service on the route. No evidence on this point was placed before
the Hearing. The U.S. carrier designated for this route has chosen to
reduce service offered between San Francisco and Vancouver. Although
the intentions of this carrier are not known, Canadian Airlines has
shown a commitment to provide maximum service to passengers on this
route.
- 4 -
For the first 9 months of 1988, Canadian Airlines operated its flights at
a passenger load factor of 78.6% capacity. This represented a
substantial increase (13%) over 1987. To suggest that Canadian Airlines
"would have sufficient seating capacity on its other flights between San
Francisco and Vancouver to carry all its customers" ignores the
undisputed facts on the record and before the Commission. Two daily
flights would not accommodate all of the passengers presently serviced
by Canadian Airlines. Furthermore, numerous letters placed before the
Commission in support of Canadian Airlines' application confirms the
very real public interest in the maintenance of the three daily flights
presently operated by Canadian Airlines.
It is respectfully submitted that the first alternative suggested by the
Director does not realistically reflect passenger traffic and their needs
and the special status afforded Canadian Airlines under the Bilateral.
The second conclusion reached by the Director is that Canadian Airlines
could comply with the Regulation by employing one of its Stage 3
aircraft on the route. A lengthy discussion on this point took place
during the course of the Hearing. Mr. Statton presented considerable
evidence as to why this was not a viable alternative. To briefly
summarize, the San Francisco - Vancouver route has a high business
component and a relatively short flying time which requires high
frequency in the number of flights. Mr. Statton's evidence was that
the market required a minimum of three daily flights with morning, noon
and evening service. Operating larger Stage 3 aircraft in Canadian
Airlines' fleet would not be economically feasible as it would operate far
below capacity. Furthermore, the Stage 3 aircraft are presently used
on long-haul international flights such as Hong Kong - Vancouver or
Toronto - Rome. To reassign these aircraft onto this route does not
acknowledge the economic realities of this market. This evidence was
apparently accepted by the Hearing Officer.
All of the above-noted arguments would not be persuasive if they were
not considered in light of Canadian Airlines' aggressive expansion of its
5 -
fleet with Stage 3 aircraft. Canadian Airlines is committed to operating
modern cost efficient aircraft which also meet environmental concerns.
Canadian Airlines' efforts to acquire through purchase and lease Stage
3 aircraft suitable for this route have been highlighted in this Response
and were dealt with in detail at the Hearing. Using the Airbus 320 on
the San Francisco - Vancouver route, Canadian Airlines will schedule
two operations in October 1991 and again two more operations in June
1992 in advance of the Stage 3 percentage operation timetable
prescribed by the Regulation (Section 4(B)(1)(b)). Furthermore, with
its large Boeing 737-200 fleet, Canadian Airlines continues to monitor
the progress of Hush Kit development. It is Canadian Airlines'
intention and commitment to comply with and exceed the requirements as
set forth in the Regulation but requests a Variance in order to do so.
It is respectfully submitted that for the reasons cited, the
recommendations of the Director should be rejected and the application
for Variance by Canadian Airlines should be granted.
Dated: December 15, 1988
lerre P. Roy
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL
LTD.
C1/212LCL/L
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
KClSjfc
Mr. Louis A. Turpen
Director of Airports
San Francisco International Airport
P.O. Box 80997
San Francisco, California 94128
Dear Mr. Turpen:
The Department of State has received a diplomatic note from
the Embassy of Canada expressing its concern over the San
Francisco International Airport Noise Abatement Regulation and
the impact that regulation may have on the operations of
Canadian Airlines International Limited.
As requested in the note, the Department of State takes
this opportunity to share with SFIA the text of the note from
the Canadian Embassy.
Sincerely,
G. Gene Griffiths
Director, Office of Aviation
Programs and Policy
Enclosure:
As stated.
Drafted :EB/TRA/AVP:GGr if fiths
12/5/88 X77973
Clearances :EB/TRA/AVP:CKauth
L/EBC:SWitten (subs.)
EUR/CAN:GDonahue
(Cmt&fcutn ^mb&es^ ^^^^^ <^mbasBair fro. Cartaim
No. 368
The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments
to the Department of State and has the honour to refer
to the 1966 Air Transport Agreement between Canada and the
United States, as amended in 1974.
The Embassy of Canada wishes to inform the
Department of State that the Government of Canada has been
advised by Canadian Airlines International Limited (CAIL) of
its intention to seek a variance from the San Francisco
International Airport Noise Abatement Regulation, as is
provided for in Section E of the said regulation. CAIL is
the Canadian carrier designated by the Government of Canada
to provide services on route F.2 of Schedule II of the
Agreement (Vancouver-San Francisco/Los Angeles).
CAIL has on order new aircraft which conform to
stage 3 requirements. However, these aircraft will not be
available until 1991. Furthermore, the Embassy understands
that CAIL' 8 current equipment is very close to
stage 3 requirements.
The Embassy wishes to advise the Department of
State that the Government of Canada would view with concern
...12
- 2 -
actions by local airport authorities that would have the
effect of imposing a capacity limitation on air services
operated pursuant to a designation under the Agreement.
The Embassy requests the Department of State to
communicate the concerns of the Government of Canada to the
appropriate authorities at San Francisco International
Airport and to support Canadian Airlines International
Limited's request before said authorities.
The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this -
*
c
opportunity to renew to the Department of State the ^
r.
assurances of its highest consideration. o
>
c
<
tr
T
2
z
rr.
z
Washington, November 2, 1988
Pn
\
\\^
/
BEFORE THE
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Application of
DHL AIRWAYS, INC,
for a variance
COMMENTS OF DHL AIRWAYS, INC.
ON THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AND THE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT'S RECOMMENDATION
DHL Airways, Inc. ("DHL") has the following factual and
legal comments on the November 18, 1988, recommendations and
findings of the Hearing Officer.
DHL has applied for a two-year variance from the 25% Stage
3 fleet mix provisions of the Airport's Commissions' noise rules.
DHL Airways also submitted a form of variance which would be
acceptable to DHL Airways. (Exhibit 21.) The Hearing Officer made
findings and recommendations that DHL receive only a one-year
variance subject to a renewal application.
While DHL will, of course, utilize that variance if it is
issued, we want to go on record that we need a longer variance. To
give comfort to the Commission's decision making process, DHL
believes that, by the end of 1990, it will be in compliance with
Section 4(B) 's 25% requirement.
We have also reviewed the Director of Airports ' December
15, 1988, recommendation to the Commission. His recommendation for
DHL is substantially similar to DHL's proposal in Hearing Exhibit
21.
To assist the Commission in evaluating the recommendation
of the Director of Airports, to help put our variance request in
perspective, and to preserve our legal position in the event the
Commission does not grant DHL adequate relief, DHL submits the
following additional argument.
I. EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
HEARING OFFICER.
A. Paragraph 23
Generally the Hearing Officer prepared a balanced report.
DHL takes exception to portions of paragraph 23 of the
Hearing Officer's report. Conceptually, a series of de minimis
variances each of which is individually insignificant, could have a
significant cumulative impact. But the Hearing Officer had no
factual basis to support the following statement: "...a series of
de minimis variances, individually insignificant, will have a
significant impact, undermining the regulation piecemeal. The
family of pending variances must be viewed in this light." (Para.
23. )
Only four carriers sought variances from Section 4(B) for
a total of 8 take-offs and 8 landings per day. One of these
applicants is allowed two flights per day under the unlawfully
discriminatory "international de minimis " exception to Section
4(B) 's percentage Stage 3 phasing requirements. Eight roundtrips
per day more or less have no impact on the smoothness of the
airport's functioning or upon the noise burden felt by airport
neighbors. By adopting the worst case potential scenario emanating
from multiple de minimis arguments without even attempting to
measure the cumulative impact, the Hearing Officer committed error
and encouraged the Commission to deny DHL's request for a two-year
variance. "-*
What are the facts? A review of the December 1, 1988,
Official Airline Guide, North American Edition, Pocket Edition,
shows approximately 486 transport category jet scheduled passenger
arrivals per day. (We presume there are 486 take-offs as well.)
This total does not include: all-cargo flights; international
flights from Europe, the Pacific, or south of Mexico; military or
government aircraft flights; corporate DC-9 ' s/B-727 ' s ' ; or charters.
The actual number of landings must be 500-550 per day on the days
DHL operates.
During December 1988 and for the foreseeable future, DHL
makes less than one landing per calendar day (as does Evergreen).
Braniff makes three landings per day, and Canadian International
makes three landings per day. These 8 landings are 1.65% of the
total domestic landings and probably less than 1.5% of total jet
transport landings on an average weekday at San Francisco. If
Canadian International's two exempted landings are excluded, the
operations for which a variance is required are less than 1.2% of
weekday operations. DHL itself performs 0.2% of the total
operations. Thus, individually and cumulatively, the four carriers
with applications pendings are de minimis with respect to noise at
the airport.
Even if each of these four carriers is forced off the
airport (Canadian International would, in the worst case, reduce its
frequencies from three to two to take advantage of the
discriminatory international exemption), these operations could
easily and legally be replaced by Stage 2 aircraft operated by
United, TWA, American, Delta, Northwest, or USAir. In this day of
expanding frequencies, the termination of those four small users of
SFIA will really produce no reduction in total aircraft noise. 1
Other carriers are not frozen (and legally cannot be) to some
historic Stage 2 level of operation. They can and will probably
expand total operations using Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. Even if
these 8 flights were replaced by 8 Stage 3 operations, the community
could not perceive the different because Stage 3 aircraft generate
noise.
The Hearing Officer failed to note that those carriers
which can comply with the 25% phasing rule can operate an increased
number of Stage 2 aircraft at San Francisco so long as they meet the
25% rule. This, of course, would aggravate the airport neighbors'
claimed irritation far more than the continued operation of DHL's
one flight a day, five days a week.
This is especially so where DHL does not fly over the gap
off Runway 28. The long haul, fully fueled flights need the
straight out, slow climb departure. The Hearing Officer ignored
DHL's unrefuted testimony on this point. Under the preferential
runway agreement, DHL uses runway 1 for take-off and runway 28 for
landing. Even when wind conditions require a runway 28 departure,
our B-727-100 turns right towards the Bay before reaching Highway
101. Put simply: residents of the gap do not hear DHL's aircraft
flying overhead except in the most extreme weather conditions.
1 United Airlines has just announced a two month frequent
flyer bonus promotion for using SFIA or Oakland. United is
promoting the use of its expanded frequencies in the Bay Area.
Indeed, this clear possibility and most likely actuality
suggests that the opposition to DHL's variance application is
misplaced. It demonstrates that denial of the variance bears no
rational relationship to the reduction of noise. So long as United,
American, TWA, Pan AM, and others can increase their Stage 2
frequencies, no purpose is served and no benefit is achieved by
denying a variance to DHL.
B. Paragraphs 27-30
We also except to the findings in paragraphs 27-30. DHL
demonstrated that it is not technologically feasible to retrofit the
B-727-100 in 1989. We offered evidence that such retrofits are
expected to be available in 1990 and that DHL would acquire such
hushkits. Thus, the weight of the evidence supports a two-year
variance.
II. COMMENTS ON THE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS' PROPOSED CONDITIONS
We have reviewed the December 15, 1988, recommendation of
the Director of Airports. The conditions proposed are generally
acceptable to DHL Airways.
The limitation to five flights per week (condition 3) must
have a safety valve to allow additional flights if (a) the aircraft
positioned at San Francisco becomes unairworthy and another DHL
operated or chartered aircraft must be brought in to replace it; or
(b) an extra DHL B-727-100 is flown to SFIA for unscheduled
maintenance. These are rare events. But we do not want to, and we
are sure that the Commission does not want to, jeopardize our
exemption should these exigencies occur.
DHL Airways will be pleased to work with the Airport
Roundtable. We anticipate no difficulty in having a DHL Airways
representative present at the Roundtable meetings.
III. CONCLUSION
Having said all this, we want to remind the Airports
Commission of the promises it made to members of the air cargo
industry in the January 22, 1988, Supplemental Preamble (Supplement
to the Statement of Basis and Purpose of San Francisco International
Airport's New Noise Abatement Regulation.)
Before we recite this to the Commission, we want to inform
the Commission that there have been changes in technology since the
rulemaking process of 1987. The Federal Express-Pratt & Whitney
hushkit for the B-727-100 (the transport category jet used by DHL
Airways) has received FAA approval that the noise characteristics of
the aircraft, as modified, satisfy Stage 3 criteria. While it is
beyond the Commission's province to delve into the FAA's
certification of the aircraft as Stage 3, the data publicly released
by Federal Express shows that the B-727-100, as modified, is quieter
on all three measurements than the maximum allowable Stage 3 limits.
The best information we have is that the hardware for the
installation of these hushkits will become available in early 1990.
DHL is negotiating with Federal Express and with Pratt & Whitney to
obtain prices for both the Pratt & Whitney and the Federal Express
components of the hushkit as well as estimates by Federal Express
for installing the hushkits. DHL anticipates that our entire fleet
of B-727-100 's will be converted during 1990 and 1991. Thus,
without yielding on any of our legal positions with respect to the
Commission's noise rule and its actions on our waiver application,
it seems likely at this writing that DHL would not require a waiver
for more than 2 years.
Notwithstanding all of this, we ask the Commission to
honor its commitment to members of the all-cargo industry which is
set forth on pages 9-10 of the Supplemental Preamble:
"Having said all this, the Commission
recognizes that the regulation may cause
some inconvenience to certain air cargo
operators. While this inconvenience does
not warrant the creation of a blanket
exemption for the air cargo industry, the
Commission nevertheless intends to be
receptive to requests by cargo and other
carriers for variances from its new noise
regulation when individual cases warrant it.
The Commission will be particularly
sympathetic to variance requests when it
believes a carrier is making serious efforts
to comply with the regulation or when the
carrier voluntarily agrees to adhere to
SFIA's preferential runway use program,
favoring the use of runways which minimize
the noise impact of operations at SFIA on
surrounding communities and residents. In
the regulation adopted today, the Commission
has included an operators willingness to
adhere to the preferential runway use
program as one of the factors that the
Commission will consider in reviewing a
variance request ... " (Emphasis added,
footnote omitted]
DHL Airways has done both of these things. It is using
its best efforts and has signed the preferential runway use
agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Herbert A. Rosenthal
HERBERT A. ROSENTHAL, CHARTERED
2020 K Street, N.W., #350
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 785-9773
Attorney for DHL AIRWAYS, INC.
December 20, 1988
sfo2 . cmt
10
STATEMENT OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
CONCERNING
SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSION
VARIANCE POLICY
San Francisco, December 20, 1988
The Federal Aviation Administration appreciates the invitation
to be here today as the Airports Commission considers pending
applications for variance from the Commission's noise
regulations adopted as Commission Resolution No. 88-0016 on
January 22, 1988.
My purpose today is not to take up the individual cause for or
against any particular applicant's request. Instead, I wish to
present the FAA's views concerning the regulation and the
policy that the FAA urges be uniformly followed in dealing with
all variance requests under Section 4 (E) of the Resolution if
the Resolution continues in effect. Firstly, in view of the
comments furnished during the regulatory process, the FAA
respectfully requests that City and County of San Francisco
suspend the 1988 Resolution pending the establishment of its
justification as specified in those comments.
2.
In the event that the City and County of San Francisco is
unable to do this, then the FAA urges it to adopt a policy
favoring the issuance of variances under Section 4(E) of the
Resolution until the Commission deals with comments filed by
the FAA, during the Commission's rule-making process,
concerning the lack of documented justification supporting
Resolution No. 88-0016.
Consistent with the responsibility of airport proprietors for
the impact of airport noise on airport neighbors, the FAA
recognizes that the adoption of reasonable and
nondiscriminatory noise regulations by airport owners is within
their authority where such regulations have been shown to be
necessary to respond to a demonstrated noise problem and where
the impacts of such regulation on air commerce have been
adequately determined and weighed in the regulatory process.
Three sets of comments filed by this agency questioned whether
this essential justification had been established either with
respect to the noise benefits to be achieved or the impact on
affected operators. While some technical adjustments were made
by the Commission in response to other comments, the FAA's
comments concerning lack of adequate analysis have not been
substantively addressed by the Commission.
3.
In this regard, comments dated July 27, 1987 in response to San
Francisco's proposed Noise Abatement Regulation dated June 1,
1987, (at page 1) stated that-
[T]he current regulatory process has bypassed
completely the kind of coordination and discussion
between San Francisco and the FAA that existed in the
period leading up to the adoption of [the 1978 noise
regulations] .... [W]e urge the Commission to continue
the practice of consultation and coordination rather
than proceed with a predetermined timetable with the
unsubstantiated product reflected in the July 1
proposals.
Because of the lack of substantive analysis and evaluation
concerning the noise problem, the noise abatement effectiveness
of the proposals, and the impact on users, the July 27th
comments requested the City and County of San Francisco to
"either withdraw the June 1 proposal or supplement it, through
the Part 150 process, with the information needed to permit an
informed technical and legal review." (p. 2). The comments
also noted that the information void was particularly
troublesome since the proposal itself stated that the
Commission "cannot. . .provide further explanation of the draft
at this time." (p. 2). Examples of the features of the
proposal for which this void provided no support were set forth
at page 3 of the comments.
4.
On November 6, 1987, the Commission issued a revised package of
proposed noise regulations. FAA comments dated December 11,
1988, (at pp. 1-2) in response to those proposals noted that,
while some study had been done since the original FAA comments
were filed
[W]e must still conclude that much remains to be done in
order to justify restrictions of the magnitude of those
proposed. Our conclusion is that, if based on the docketed
materials (that we were able to locate) , the proposals have
not been reasonably justified on the basis claimed. We
request that no action be taken to implement these
proposals until adequate justification is shown to exist.
We are particularly concerned that... the Airports
Commission counsel stated that the Commission is "going to
phase out Stage 2 aircraft long before the FAA gets around
to doing it" ....This statement of Commission intent, while
the comment period is open, heightens the concern we
expressed in our earlier comments regarding possible
prejudgment by the Commission Review of docketed
materials disclosed only one technical report, the Ken
Eldred Engineering Report (KEE 87-46) , which appeared to
provide technical support for the proposed rules.... We have
not been able to discern a technical relationship between
that report and the Commission's justification for the
proposed regulation. For example, the KEE Report refers to
"noise contours prepared by the Parry Company specifically
for the proposed regulation" (p. 5) . No such contours were
found in the docket. The only contours in the docket were
those prepared by Parry for the Noise Exposure Maps
submitted to the FAA under Part 150 in 1983. Those maps are
not accurate, current, or complete for the purpose of
assessing the noise impacts of the proposed regulation."
Examples of the inadequacies of the Parry contours were
included in those FAA comments, (at pp. 2-3) which concluded
that
Because of this lack of pertinent data, it becomes
particularly important to ensure that the regulation does
not place unnecessary burdens on affected operators.
However, the docket did not appear to contain any analyses
of the impact of implementing the proposed regulation on
5.
aircraft operators, or any analyses of the marginal noise
abatement benefits of imposing those burdens on those
operators. .. .Our representative was unable to locate in the
docket any information related to either the noise benefits
or the economic impacts of the other aspects of the
proposals.
With this background, we advised, at p. 8 of our comments, that
the proposals
appear to place unknown and unanalyzed economic burdens on
affected operators. As to individual operators who may
need a variance, the burden here should be on the regulator
prior to adoption of the regulation, not on the applicant
after the issuance of a regulation that was not adequately
studied, from an economic and noise standpoint, prior to
adoption. This appears to pass through, to the applicant,
the duty of the Commission itself to analyze and understand
the noise and economic impacts of its proposals.
(emphasis in original) .
On January 11, 1988, revised proposed noise regulations were
issued by the Commission. In response to that revision, the
FAA submitted a third set of comments dated January 21, 1988.
Those comments acknowledged that the revisions relaxed some of
the impacts of the earlier proposals, but stated, (at page 1) :
[W]e have, once again, searched the explanatory materials
available to us, and must confirm our earlier concern that
neither the noise benefits nor the air commerce impacts
(including potentially discriminatory impacts) of the final
proposal have been subject to the kind of detailed study
and justification that is appropriate for restrictions of
this magnitude.
With respect to the impacts of the new regulations on air cargo
operators, the FAA comments stressed that "[a] central concern
throughout our comments ... has been the lack of a responsible
analysis of the impacts of the proposals on air commerce, in
relation to the noise benefits to be derived from the
6.
regulation. The concerns expressed by the air cargo operators
only underscore the fundamental lack of substantiating
information that the FAA has repeatedly requested and which has
to date not been presented for informed review." (p. 2).
Notwithstanding those comments, the Commission inexplicably
concluded that the FAA did not join in the air cargo operators'
concerns regarding economic impact. ( Supplement , p. 6)
In addition to these concerns regarding the lack of
justification for the regulation, the FAA, in its January 21,
1988 comments, objected to the Commission's intended use of the
variance process as a means of forcing compliance with SFIA's
preferential runway use program. Thus, at page 2 of those
comments, we cautioned:
[T]he matter of compliance with preferential runway use
programs is a matter of federal jurisdiction and control,
and is intimately related to operational safety. Even where
a formal runway use program is established by the FAA, the
pilot retains the right to request a different runway, and
ATC is authorized to assign a different runway if requested
(see 14 C.F.R. 91.87(g)). This proposal to penalize an
operator for deviation from a preferential runway is in
direct conflict with this federally preempted area.
While we are pleased to acknowlege that the final rule, as
adopted on January 22, 1988, does contain some adjustments
based on public comments, the fact remains that the adopted
7.
regulation does not respond to the FAA's concerns raised on
three separate occasions regarding the fundamental
justification for the regulation. The variance process still
shifts, to the regulated public, the burden of justification
that is and was properly the Commission's burden as the
regulating body. Most unfortunately, the variance process is
still framed to force compliance with the preferential runway
system, which requirement, we must conclude in view of our
strong protest to the Commission, is a conscious discounting of
FAA's concerns regarding Federal operational responsibilities
at SFIA.
The explanatory material for the final regulation contains no
substantive response whatsoever to the specific comments
submitted by the FAA concerning the need to substantiate the
noise problem, determine the noise benefits to be derived from
the regulation, and assess the air commerce impacts of the
regulation.
The only references to the FAA's three sets of comments
concerning justification for the regulation criticize the
number of pages devoted by the FAA to certain issues and state
that, because the FAA was not physically present at the
8.
regulatory hearing, the Commission was somehow prevented from
"directly soliciting the FAA's views about the regulation."
(p. 1, Supplement ) . It is very clear from this statement and
the Commission's statement that it "simply cannot accept [the
air cargo operators'] cost/benefit analyses," without
developing a cost/benefit study of its own for informed public
comment, that the Commission made its commitment to "phase out
stage 2 aircraft long before the FAA gets around to doing it"
without regard to the kinds of fundamental staff work needed to
demonstrate the noise problem being addressed, the benefits of
the proposed rule, and the impacts on affected operators.
As a result, the Commission has effectively shifted the burden
of demonstrating these bases for responsible rulemaking
entirely onto the shoulders of members of the public who apply
for variances under the Resolution. Section 4(E)(1) places the
burden on the applicant to demonstrate both the noise impacts
and the industry-wide economic impacts of deviating from a
regulation that itself was not studied by the Commission from
those standpoints (see Sec. 4(E)(2)).
In summary, variance applicants under Section 4(E) are being
reguired to submit a studied review of the effects of departing
from unstudied noise and economic baselines — an inherently
impossible task.
9.
In conclusion, the FAA repeats its request that the 1988
Resolution be suspended pending the determination of its
underlying basis. However, if the Commission determines that
it is unable to do this, then the FAA requests that enforcement
of Section 4(B) of the Regulation be suspended by January 1,
1989 while the necessary justification is developed. If the
Commission determines that this is not possible, then the FAA
urges that a policy favoring the issuance of variances be
applied uniformly to all pending and future applicants, and
that the missing analyses be developed for public scrutiny as
soon as possible.
Respectfully Submitted,
Herman C. Bliss
Manager, Airports Division